'Is global warming happening?' Poll discussion/results

ZTD

davetrousers wrote: »

On balance trees produce far more oxygen than Carbon Dioxide

On balance they don't. Trees are - over their lifecycle - carbon neutral.

It's just that there are so many of them, alive, and made out of carbon - that they sequstrate carbon from the air.

When they die - as they must - then they release that carbon back.

feesh

westernpromise wrote: »

The point is that lots of us agree that something is happening, but do not buy the solution. Gore and cynics like him are trying to package the whole thing - i.e. global warming is happening --> it's our fault --> we can fix it --> pay these taxes.

What taxes are we being asked to pay though and how has it impacted on you personally? I don't think that there's been nearly enough!

It's a sad fact that the environmental movement has had to lobby hard for fiscal measures to be brought into place. People won't change unless they're forced into it financially. It's sad but true. My partner was on the phone to me this morning saying that he's going to buy a car so he can drive to a diferent station on another line every morning - so he can get a cheaper commuter ticket:mad: . Money talks (and he knows it's not the most environmentally friendly option but he's putting his imeediate needs ahead of some intangible global problem, which is human nature).

It doesn't have to conflict with moneysaving though.

I used to work for a Local Authority and I was trying to 'green' them from the inside. We managed to shave thousands of their energy bills, but it wasn't for the good of the environment that they made the changes - it was because of the Carbon Tax they were paying.

They could have made their buildings a lot more energy efficient years and years ago, but it took the carbon tax to make them sort it out.

I don't see why everyone has to get so political about climate change.... something has gone badly wrong in the communications from the science community and NGOs. All of these measures to tackle it have NOT come from governments, they've come from the likes of me dedicating years of my life to trying to get governments to change things!:o

At the end of the day, a lot of the things you can do to help the environment will benefit you anyway. Energy efficiency has lots of benefits.

There is never going to be a definite 'yay or nay' from the scientific community on climate change, so there's no point waiting for one. There is no such thing as a black and white issue in science.

As an example, one of the research projects I was involved in was looking at the impacts of tributyltin on shellfish. It took about 20 years' worth of research, which was often conflicting and of which my study was just a drop in the ocean of published research, before there was any kind of move to ban tributyltins. Even then it was never conclusive. And it shouldn't be, because all scientific research is open to criticism.

Scientists don't pick a side and then apply for grants accordingly, or manipulate their research to suit anyone's needs. That's not how the research community works. There is a lot of pride in the work that goes on and a lot of peer pressure to produce credible research. Nobody wants to present a paper at a conference and make a pratt of themselves during the Q&A.

So why is the public so polarised in their views on this topic? At the end of the day, can't we find a common ground? We're all here to save money and it doesn't matter whether or not we're affecting the environment - saving energy is a good thing, the congestion charge is helping my asthma and I don't want the oil to run out while I am still on this planet!

<Feesh dishes out a group hug for the MSEers>

topgranny

gibby wrote: »

Doh!

I cant believe anyone is daft enough not to see the problems all over the world with our selfishness for cheap goods, excessive foods etc

people & children are dying

in 3rd world countries upto 95% of the water is used for grazing
80% of grain is used for grazing
all for meat to be fed to the us & European customers

13 billion tonnes of waste is produced in this process
& 8 times more grain is used to feed the cattle than to feed the humans direct

wake up & stop making excuses

G

All of this is true, Gibby, but I think it's a completely different issue. We most certainly need to change the way we do things. Cutting food miles and recycling, etc., are definitely the way forward but I don't see that they will make any difference to climate change.

ZTD

feesh wrote: »

It doesn't have to conflict with moneysaving though.

No - it [being green] doesn't. If it is cheaper. But why isn't is cheaper? Is it because all this recycling is wasteful? And before you say "No" - tell how how you know it isn't.

feesh wrote: »

I used to work for a Local Authority and I was trying to 'green' them from the inside. We managed to shave thousands of their energy bills, but it wasn't for the good of the environment that they made the changes - it was because of the Carbon Tax they were paying.

They could have made their buildings a lot more energy efficient years and years ago, but it took the carbon tax to make them sort it out.

Did it? Or was it Goverment grants? After all Agenda 21 has been around years, but without money - not much happens.

feesh wrote: »

I don't see why everyone has to get so political about climate change.... something has gone badly wrong in the communications from the science community and NGOs.

Ah yes...communication. Most people define communication as "the process of exchanging information and ideas." But that isn't the communication you're talking about. You're talking about a telling. Our betters talk - and we are supposed to listen, agree, and obey. If we don't, then better communications are needed i.e. we are told the message again.

To counter this "unnecessary public opposition", the introduction of AWCs is usually accompanied by an education programme on its environmental benefits.

Yes, misuse of the word education as well. As least people were more honest about this process earlier in the last century.

But, now things have changed, and it doesn't seem to have environmental benefits. Perhaps the "environment" has changed?

feesh wrote: »

At the end of the day, a lot of the things you can do to help the environment will benefit you anyway. Energy efficiency has lots of benefits.

It does - but that also depends how you measure it. Total lifecycle costs are very rarely measured. Disposal costs are notorious for being ignored despite a mania for recycling.

feesh wrote: »

There is never going to be a definite 'yay or nay' from the scientific community on climate change, so there's no point waiting for one. There is no such thing as a black and white issue in science.

But there is a "here is the evidence, and we haven't falsified any of it, or ditched the stuff that doesn't meet with our theory, and here is how we've processed it to come to these conclusions".

We still are not there with climate change.

feesh wrote: »

Scientists don't pick a side and then apply for grants accordingly, or manipulate their research to suit anyone's needs. That's not how the research community works.

Of course not how could anyone think such a thing. :rolleyes:

feesh wrote: »

So why is the public so polarised in their views on this topic? At the end of the day, can't we find a common ground?

Because we are being lied to. That does tend to polarise people.

That's only one example. There are now so many I've given up keeping a collection. Google for "bristlecone controvesy" if you fancy a laugh. Marvel at how Al Gore can accurately measure temperture back 2 million years whereas a climate change panel has said any temperature proxies older than 300 years are very unreliable and should not be used. Gasp in amazment as the "Mediaeval Warm Period" and "The Little Ice Age" keep disappearing and reappearing depending on how much they upset your temperature graphs. This week - they're a matter of fact. Time before that they weren't. Next week? Who knows..?

feesh wrote: »

I don't want the oil to run out while I am still on this planet!

Oil will not run out in anyone's lifetime. It may however become exceedingly expensive.

zcaprd7

superhoop wrote: »

I just think the way the poll results are shaping up is very scary. At present over 40% of respondents think that Global Warming is not happening.

Hold on, did you even read the question? It was if HUMANS were to blame, not if global warming is happening.

This video is good, it looks at the economic angle assuming global warning is real:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62

I for one would rather fix Malaria/AIDS/third world drinking water - I know these are 'real' problems...

tomhill

The questions a little bit msleading. Its more like 99% of scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening and 1% think its purely natural ...

tomhill

Trouble is is that Climate Change is likely to make the situations in the Third World much worse. Tackling the causes of CC would also go along way to helping solve the problems that you have noted.

zcaprd7 wrote: »

Hold on, did you even read the question? It was if HUMANS were to blame, not if global warming is happening.

This video is good, it looks at the economic angle assuming global warning is real:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/62

I for one would rather fix Malaria/AIDS/third world drinking water - I know these are 'real' problems...

ZTD

tomhill wrote: »

The questions a little bit msleading. Its more like 99% of scientists believe that anthropogenic global warming is happening and 1% think its purely natural ...

And I always thought that 99% of statistics made up on the spot. Well...I might be wrong...

pezza88

This is ludicrous! Go to any science department and you will severely struggle to find any scientist who does not accept climate change. This is because they actually see the data and do not base their reasoning upon what they read in the Sun combined with last week's weather forecast.

A small minority of people put global warming down to changes in sun intensity, etc. but this falls down on one major point - there is virtually no evidence to suggest that the Sun's intensity has increased! There is no problem investigating other possibilities but to believe it is ludicrous.

WAKE UP!

hannahdive

So, there's a few things that need to be considered.
1) Most scientists with any expertise in the field agree that carbon dioxide and methane levels in the atomsphere are increasing (those who dont are blatantly ignoring hard fact)
2) Methane IS preventing herat escaping out of the atmosphere, like an invisible duvet
3) much confusion is caused because 2 points are played up by those it suits, firstly that there are cyclical changes in the earth's temperature- true, and secondly that we're not seeing major temp changes yet- but this is being simplistic. The cyclical changes occur based on our distance from the sun. The orbit we make wobbles slightly and accordingly there are qwoarmer and cooler eras, however what is ALREADY being observed is not down to alone . . as for temp chages, we must remember that if the earth's history was represented by 24 hours, even then the time man has existed is only a split second; so 'rapid' in geological time does not mean 10 years, however dont consider it slow- regards species adapting to it it is quick. And there are other indicators; the thames barrier used to be used once in a blue moon, soon it will be useless!

4) for info if anyone thinks channel 4's climate change swindel programme revealed some truths: several of the big name scientists on there tried to prevent it being sold on dvd withoput large changes as they were misquoted or edited misleadingly

My main point however is this; climate change is not just about hotter weather. It will affect weather patterns, rainfall,. oceanic currents, productivity, and crucially- the oceans themselves.

the burning of fossil fuels since the start of the industrial revolution has caused an increase in atmosheric co2 levels 100 TIMES FASTER than seen in geological history (ie looking back billions of years) The last time that came close was at the permian triassic where there was a mass extinction, but even that was slower than today. It is not the amount in the atmosphere that is tyhe problem, it is the rate at which it is loading. The ocean absorbs 50% of atmospheric co2. Normally the ocean chemistry buffers this co2 addition, but since the industrial revolution it cannot keep up, so co2 entering the oceans is altering the pH of the oceans- it is becoming more acidic- 0.1 pH units already. This is a relatively new area of research as it was only discovered in around 2000 but research s0o far indicates it will affect organsims with shells- from mussels to coral reefs as well as ecosystems including commercially important species.

So my point is this
- the issue is the accumulation of gases
- how quick/how much warming there will be may not have been agreed across scientists but the mechanisms and that it will are agreed to be true
- co2 and methane are measurably higher- as a direct result of burning fossil fuels
- it is this change in amount of mehtane & co2 that is important, not temp change so far; as there gases are the mechanisms for the consequences of what has been termed global warming.
- the issue with the oceans is termed 'ocena acidification' look out for it, it has potentially huge implications and will become more widely discussed as reseach accrues

Don't let the politicians use discrepancies in magnitude of effects to plant doubt- damage limitation (ie drastically reducing emissions) costs a lot of money they dont want to spend.

Rant over

Badger_Lady wrote: »

My knowledge is purely based on "what they told me at school" and Al Gore's an Inconvenient Truth.

The trouble with all the information I've gathered is this:

- We've seen proof that climate change can have a devestating effect on animal / human life. After all, every so often in Earth's history we have an ice age that envelopes the planet in a mile-thick layer of ice.

- We've seen proof of a historical correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures

- We've seen proof that we are now producing LOADS more CO2 than the planet has ever seen before

BUT

- We have NOT seen proof that CO2 increases cause global warming, only the theory of 'greenhouse gases'. In fact, my assumption is that CO2 levels have always been higher at warm periods due to the fact that animal life thrives in these temperatures. And if we take literally the implication that CO2 and temperature are directly related, this would surely mean that, rather than a few degrees increase, the Earth itself will melt and become a liquid surface. Personally, I can't imagine that a change in atmosphere levels could have this kind of catastrophic effect.

- We do NOT know that reducing CO2 emissions will slow down the temperature increase of the planet, let alone stop it! I'm dying for someone to tell me otherwise - I'm a pretty earth-loving hippy type and I've always listened to cases with an open mind, but I have to see real evidence before I'll buy in. And I can't find it! In fact, the very idea that we have to vote on this defines it as opinion, not truth.

Anyone?