'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

beebearshouse

While I don’t believe we are responsible for Global Warming I do believe the following :

• Climate change is a fact – The climate is constantly changing it always has done and will continue to do so. There is historical evidence of a warm spell which saw vineyards in the south of England (that’s apparently where vine street gets it’s name). There was also a cold spell, which saw winter ice fairs held on the river Thames.
• We should all do our best to reduce our carbon footprint – Not for the reasons we are being told but because it makes financial sense. If you do the sums all but the most extreme measures for reducing our carbon footprint will, in the long run, save us large sums of money. I’m as tight as a ducks @$£€*, that is what got me into being green in the first place and I probably have some of the lowest expenditure levels of all the people I know. The people I know who spend less that I do are the ones who have taken the measures I’m not brave enough or too lazy to take.
• By reducing our carbon footprint we will ultimately reduce the amount of Earths resources we are personally responsible for depleting, thus doing our bit for future generations – I know it is hard to think about this seriously but when I’m trying to put this into context I always think how annoyed I’d be if I found out my grandparents had ignored warnings and knowingly used up something irreplaceable that I and my children would need. Say for example the ability to re-produce by having too many children
• Every little helps – It might seem like the task is too huge, there is no point, what difference can you make. But you would be amazed at the impact one persons actions can make. All it takes is one person close to you seeing that you are doing the right thing and they will start to copy you which will in turn lead to someone they are close to copying them. I have personally seen people I am close to go from thinking I am a bit quirky (to put it politely), to passing their recyclables my way for me to take “while I’m at it” to actively recycling themselves, to asking my advice when they are making purchases or disposing of stuff, it’s incredibly satisfying.
• The so called “facts” surrounding carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect are the same now as they were 30 years ago, however someone suddenly realised they could tax us and make us think they were doing the right thing and so global warming has become “official”.
• It is all theory and conjecture – No-one knows, that really is the thing. Did you know carbon is thought to stay in the atmosphere for a maximum of 100 years?? All the carbon from the industrial revolution they are so keen to say is contributing to the problem has long since been washed out of the atmosphere. Did you know scientists think the time we experienced the highest levels of carbon in the atmosphere (millions of years ago) it was too cold for rain – Rain apparently washes the carbon out of the atmosphere, perhaps the extreme weather we have experienced this year is a blessing in disguise and will have washed some carbon away. - in 100 years time what will we think of the panic, doom and gloom that is being spread around now?? Perhaps we will laugh, perhaps we will be cursing that no-one took it seriously enough

westernpromise

I wouldn't really disagree with the above post and nor do I disagree that the earth does appear to have warmed up slightly. I also completely agree that to pollute is irresponsible and to recycle is elegant. I would personally rather repair an old thing than buy a new thing, simply because it is crass and wasteful not to. That is why my car is 34 years old, and has saved about 3 or 4 replacement cars from needing to be built.

My point in citing the Newsweek article was to show that, then as now, bad science is always pushed at us in the same way - apocalyptic predictions, talking heads, and the infamous "majority opinion" as a way of closing down any debate by, in effect, insisting that there was a debate, you missed it, and it's now over.

Any viewpoint which relies on such intellectual dishonesty should be treated with the utmost scepticism, and the trouble with a lot of climate science is the lies, hypocrisy, and partiality. I've already mentioned Al Gore's carbon credits company. I don't want to get into the boring financials, but the biggest lie embedded in the Stern Report was the discount rate he used. He estimated a cost of global warming in the future and then applied it to today with almost no account taken of the time value of money. In essence, he argued that a cost of £1 in the future is also £1 now, so we should spend the £1 now.

By other economists' estimates, the world will be about eight times richer in 100 years' time, so the alternative view is that people in 100 years' time should pay, because the cost will cripple us and barely touch them.
Stern's argument is like saying the people of Britain in 1870 should have beggared themselves trying to pay for Concorde because it would be useful in 1970. Not only would that have blighted the economic lives of people in 1870, it wouldn't have been useful and whatever they'd imagined "Concorde" to be it would have turned out to be wrong.

Incidentally - I kinda hate to trample on anyone's religion in this way, but it now appears that 1998 wasn't the warmest year after all; it was 1934. http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

denny250

star2007 wrote: »

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the_Earth%27s_atmosphere
for details about increases in CO2 concentrations in the atmophere.

.

I wouldnt quote wikipedia as your argument anyone can go there and edit the stories

Paulxo

beebearshouse wrote: »

While I don’t believe we are responsible for Global Warming I do believe the following :

Hmm... it doesn't really matter what you BELIEVE does it?

• Climate change is a fact – The climate is constantly changing it always has done and will continue to do so. There is historical evidence of a warm spell which saw vineyards in the south of England (that’s apparently where vine street gets it’s name). There was also a cold spell, which saw winter ice fairs held on the river Thames.

Good to see you believe in facts. The question is the RATE OF CHANGE of climate. Is it changing so quickly we're going to suffer?

• We should all do our best to reduce our carbon footprint – Not for the reasons we are being told but because it makes financial sense. If you do the sums all but the most extreme measures for reducing our carbon footprint will, in the long run, save us large sums of money. I’m as tight as a ducks @$£€*, that is what got me into being green in the first place and I probably have some of the lowest expenditure levels of all the people I know. The people I know who spend less that I do are the ones who have taken the measures I’m not brave enough or too lazy to take.

No we shouldn't. It doesn't make financial sense at all. Using resources makes us rich, not poor. Besides, a step inside any high street store and looking how many lights they have on...for some reason always more than 50...with fan heaters blowing outside their door, leaves an individual's contribution far, far behind.

• By reducing our carbon footprint we will ultimately reduce the amount of Earths resources we are personally responsible for depleting, thus doing our bit for future generations – I know it is hard to think about this seriously but when I’m trying to put this into context I always think how annoyed I’d be if I found out my grandparents had ignored warnings and knowingly used up something irreplaceable that I and my children would need. Say for example the ability to re-produce by having too many children

You don't know what's going to happen in the future so how do you know that this problem won't be solved anyway? We have renewable energy...so when the resources run out it won't matter. Besides, this is exactly the issue, since the amount of 'resources' being put into stopping climate change is incredibly expensive, and will only have a tiny effect anyway. Then there's the fact that we're choosing to let people starve, die of disease and so on because we're trying to prevent a 1 degree change in a century.

• Every little helps – It might seem like the task is too huge, there is no point, what difference can you make. But you would be amazed at the impact one persons actions can make. All it takes is one person close to you seeing that you are doing the right thing and they will start to copy you which will in turn lead to someone they are close to copying them. I have personally seen people I am close to go from thinking I am a bit quirky (to put it politely), to passing their recyclables my way for me to take “while I’m at it” to actively recycling themselves, to asking my advice when they are making purchases or disposing of stuff, it’s incredibly satisfying.

hmm...that implies it is the right thing. Actually recycling is probably a waste of time.

• The so called “facts” surrounding carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect are the same now as they were 30 years ago, however someone suddenly realised they could tax us and make us think they were doing the right thing and so global warming has become “official”.

• It is all theory and conjecture – No-one knows, that really is the thing. Did you know carbon is thought to stay in the atmosphere for a maximum of 100 years?? All the carbon from the industrial revolution they are so keen to say is contributing to the problem has long since been washed out of the atmosphere. Did you know scientists think the time we experienced the highest levels of carbon in the atmosphere (millions of years ago) it was too cold for rain – Rain apparently washes the carbon out of the atmosphere, perhaps the extreme weather we have experienced this year is a blessing in disguise and will have washed some carbon away. - in 100 years time what will we think of the panic, doom and gloom that is being spread around now?? Perhaps we will laugh, perhaps we will be cursing that no-one took it seriously enough

Rain washes carbon out of the atmosphere? How? Magic?

I used to worry about the environment too. 10 years ago I was a member of Greenpeace and used to argue with car drivers about the damage they were doing...('3 empty seats!') and of course I was laughed at. Now I suppose I've been proven right....except I was wrong. 5 years ago I read 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' and that was the end of my concerns.

All that matters is that we make good use of the resources available to us and not waste them with this climate change folly.

Here's the start of an interview which I think you would find interesting...

There are two sides to every story – and global warming is no exception. Thus far, much has been said via Live Earth about the potentially catastrophic dangers of allowing climate change to continue unchecked. But there is an alternative perspective.

Bjorn Lomborg, named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2004 and author of the bestselling The Sceptical Environmentalist, is the poster boy for that perspective.

An adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, Bjorn believes sweeping calls for action are little more than scare-mongering and insists that taking drastic, here-and-now measures is the worst way to spend the world’s financial resources. Live Earth UK caught up with him to take a long, cool look at global warming.

It continues at <a href=http://www.anotherbeautifulday.com/page17.htm>here</a&gt;

star2007

To reply to the above two posts...

I'm very happy to quote wikipedia & people to edit it if they know what they're talking about. I'm always in favour of hearing a new fact or different perspective on an issue. It may not change my mind on an issue, but it will deepen my understanding of it.

To quote Westernpromise:

By other economists' estimates, the world will be about eight times richer in 100 years' time, so the alternative view is that people in 100 years' time should pay, because the cost will cripple us and barely touch them.

I would say not necessarily: our wealth primarily comes from the natural world/ primary industry.... then with value added on top through human endevour/ technology/ creativity/ talent etc, to make finished goods. If we use up primary resources faster than they can be replenished, the world could quite possibly be 8 times poorer in 100 years time. I see it as taking out a massive 100 year mortgage.... the monthly repayments are low and inconsequential now, but by the time our great grandchildren are around the compound interest will have snowballed to be financially crippling.

Indeed, it's the spending money on pointless consumerist products, like dirt cheap flights to Bratislava, not because you've got friends there, or you're really interested in its history, but just because it cost £1.50. Or piles of economy brand clothes that you never wear, or random plastic "baubles". These are using up the world's resources, and hitting our pockets at the same time. The same principle can be correlated to governments too: they spend money on pointless schemes and projects, whereas we would all and the planet too would be better off without that spending...

.....being green and being a Money Saving Expert fan go hand in hand for me:D

dronid

Paulxo wrote: »

Hmm... it doesn't really matter what you BELIEVE does it?

5 years ago I read 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' and that was the end of my concerns.

Bjorn Lomborg, named one of the 100 most influential people in the world by Time magazine in 2004 and author of the bestselling The Sceptical Environmentalist, is the poster boy for that perspective.

I must say, having had a look at his website and his own rebuttal of comments about climate change being beneficial he does state that it will be very detrimental to most people, particularly with those who are the worst off and he estimates it will cost trillions to manage the change in conditions.

That and he's not an environmental scientist. He appears to be a political scientist which, as with politicians, tends to result in selective interpretation of evidence to support a particular standpoint.

I'm afraid that until we have a computer that can take in all data and extrapolate with some confidence what will happen, it’s all 'informed theories'.

Maybe something to consider is that waste is exactly that. Waste. If it's not going to be used by someone else it will just sit and decay. And if it cost money then some proportion of that will be wasted. And if it involved any kind of manufacturing process, the damage caused by that process has an effect. Saying recycling is a waste of time is only true if it is cheaper and harms nothing to throw it away and make a new one.

What can I say? From the evidence supplied from many varied sources, it seems likely our climate is changing. Climate is a somewhat unpredictable system. We, with our monkey brains trying to fill the world with bananas adds another unpredictable factor on top.

Just as a slight aside to anyone who thinks we can't affect the environment - did you see the Olympic preparations in Beijing?

Now here's a question. Does anyone think our climate is changing? Remember, the answer is yes because our climate is always changing.:D

ZTD

beebearshouse wrote: »

[*]By reducing our carbon footprint we will ultimately reduce the amount of Earths resources we are personally responsible for depleting, thus doing our bit for future generations – I know it is hard to think about this seriously but when I’m trying to put this into context I always think how annoyed I’d be if I found out my grandparents had ignored warnings and knowingly used up something irreplaceable that I and my children would need. Say for example the ability to re-produce by having too many children

So instead of you cursing your grandparents, for using up an irreplaceable resource, you'd rather use it up yourself - and presumably be cursed by your grandchildren..?

ZTD

denny250 wrote: »

I wouldnt quote wikipedia as your argument anyone can go there and edit the stories

And anyone can go and edit them back. Too much of that and the page gets locked. If it's locked - then its contentious...

ZTD

Paulxo wrote: »

Good to see you believe in facts. The question is the RATE OF CHANGE of climate. Is it changing so quickly we're going to suffer?

The climate could remain the same, and millions of people would be suffering. So it's not really the question.

Paulxo wrote: »

No we shouldn't. It doesn't make financial sense at all. Using resources makes us rich, not poor.

Not at all. I could use up resources by setting fire to a field of corn - but that would make me no richer than before.

Paulxo wrote: »

Besides, a step inside any high street store and looking how many lights they have on...for some reason always more than 50...with fan heaters blowing outside their door, leaves an individual's contribution far, far behind.

It does. But they're using up resources - is it making them rich?

Paulxo wrote: »

Rain washes carbon out of the atmosphere? How? Magic?

Carbon dioxide is very slightly soluble in water, forming carbonic acid. This "acid enriched" water is what causes caves, and stalactites and stalagmites. Obviously "burning" through the limestone neutralises it.

Paulxo wrote: »

5 years ago I read 'The Skeptical Environmentalist' and that was the end of my concerns.

He has a lot of good arguments, but he is wrong in some places. Certainly "stop worrying" was not one of my reactions. "More focussed concern" is probably a better description.

ZTD

star2007 wrote: »

Indeed, it's the spending money on pointless consumerist products, like dirt cheap flights to Bratislava, not because you've got friends there, or you're really interested in its history, but just because it cost £1.50.

But the alternative to that, is transporting an empty seat to Bratislava. There is a reason why it costs £1.50...