Global warming and "convenience"

Ben84

I know some scientific papers predicted another ice age many years ago, but I don't know how big a deal it was or how many people really believed it. The idea didn't seem to gather the attention that global warming has now, and I don't believe there was such great acceptance of the idea.

Popular or not at the time, I don't however see the importance of it now or the relevance to global warming. It's an old and largely discredited theory, very few people seem to believe it now and mainstream science doesn't support it.

Objectively, old outdated theories shouldn't influence our views of new theories. We need to look at the evidence available to support or contradict global warming itself, not delve in to a completely different theory that most people don't even believe in now. What useful truths can be found about global warming by talking about very old predictions of ice ages.

There's a good reason why jurors in trials have certain information withheld from them, it's because it's not actually directly relevant to that specific situation and does nothing but get in the way of a fair conclusion. If a conclusion is obvious and well presented, it doesn't need anything but its own evidence and can stand alone on that.

If the global warming theory is clearly wrong then it should be possible to prove this by talking about only global warming. If it is correct, then the same should also be true.

moonrakerz

Ben84 wrote: »

There's a good reason why jurors in trials have certain information withheld from them, it's because it's not actually directly relevant to that specific situation and does nothing but get in the way of a fair conclusion. If a conclusion is obvious and well presented, it doesn't need anything but its own evidence and can stand alone on that.

If the global warming theory is clearly wrong then it should be possible to prove this by talking about only global warming. If it is correct, then the same should also be true.

Absolutely spot on !

But unfortunately in today's hysterical climate (sorry, but best word) only the "true believers" are telling the truth - those who doubt are heretics, and should be shouted down or the facts they put forward just totally denied.

The responses to this thread show that, oh so clearly.

geordie_joe

You make some good points Ben, but the reason why the coming ice age wasn't as widely known or talked about back in the 60's and 70's was communication. In those days if you wanted to read about a theory/prediction etc. you usually had to by a book or "boring magazine" or subscribe to scientific journals. Or watch one of those boring 60/70's open university programs that were shown when normal people were asleep.

These days, with the internet, more TV's and TV stations than you can shake a stick at, and newspapers online inviting readers to comment, it is not only easier to hear about things, it is also easy to have your say.

So we have gone from having "scientists" talking at us, if we were bored enough to go looking for them, to actively engaging in the debate. So naturally the subject is going to be more popular and more widely talked about.

As for out dated theories influencing present theories. It's not the theories, for me at least, it's the fact that many who now shout about man made global warming were shouting about the coming ice age a few decades ago. The only thing that has changed is the amount of money they are making from it. They were selling a thousand books about the ice age in the 70's, now they are selling millions about Global Warming.

I completely agree with your last paragraph, but I know both sides are guilty of not sticking to that. They drag all sorts of rubbish into the debate.

I personally do not believe in man made global warming, but I'm convinced only time has the answer. I'd love to come back in a thousand years and find out what happens!

geordie_joe

moonrakerz wrote: »

Absolutely spot on !

But unfortunately in today's hysterical climate (sorry, but best word) only the "true believers" are telling the truth - those who doubt are heretics, and should be shouted down or the facts they put forward just totally denied.

The responses to this thread show that, oh so clearly.

Too right, some of them really do remind me of Jehovah's Witnesses. They believe what they believe and will not listen. They try to tell people to be open minded while all the time their mind is firmly closed.

They put the other side down for listening to people then quote what someone else has said as proof something will happen. They say someone who has not got the right university degrees is not qualified to argue against their beliefs, but quote equally unqualified people in support of their beliefs.

In a couple of thousand years time there will either be a lot of red faces (one side or the other), or a small section of the community who still believes it is coming while the rest of us has given up and got on with our lives.

It's happened before, remember that bloke on the cross? There's still a small section of the community who think he was a god and will come back and save us.

Ben84

If the more serious predictions are true, we won't have to wait 1000 years.

Personally, while I'm convinced for a number of reasons, including those in my earlier post about deforestation that human activities are significantly changing the climate and environment, I still have some small reservations about carbon dioxide's influence.

However, right or wrong, the carbon dioxide debate is a very important one. It is the first serious challenge to the way we consume things, waste things and pollute the environment. Even without CO2, there is nothing good about excessive fossil fuel consumption. It creates lots of other types of pollution and environmental damage that have been proven, and it is fast depleting an important resource.

If the threat of global warming, real or not, can change the way we use resources, it will be a good thing.

Global warming has also bought out an important and increasingly polarised situation, even if we don't yet see it, we're all increasingly dividing in to two groups. Those who support a hands-off approach to environmental management, the traditional green groups who want to minimise human influences. And those who support a hands-on approach. Using new technologies to change the environment to our advantage. Adding minerals to the sea to grow algae that soak up CO2 and sink it, or constructing giant solar shields, or changing the cloud cover for example. One or the other will have to win this debate, or they will forever be in stalemate. How we choose to manage global warming will be very interesting and I suspect set a precedent for environmental management in the future, so I'm very interested to see what happens next.

It would be interesting to go in to the further future and see how things look then. We are very capable today, I believe we're clearly far more capable in sciences than any other time in history, but we seem to be falling victim to all the mistakes that have come before. We are in great danger of going down in history as the society that filled every corner of the planet with plastics and had no idea what to do with them, chopped down the entire rainforest to make cookies and margarine (palm oil), and then ran out of fossil fuels abruptly because we didn't bother to plan ahead.

I really hope the global warming debate will do something about this. Even if it turns out it isn't real.

geordie_joe

Ben, take a tip from me and delete your previous post.

I've read it five times and really think you should turn it into an ebook or paid for article, it is worth a fortune.

There is no doubt in my mind that it is one of the best posts/comments/articles ever written on the subject. People will pay to have this on their web sites.

There are posts in this thread that I consider to be very good, and many posts in other threads that I consider to be equally good. There are also many posters who I respect enormously, they have far more knowledge than me and can put their point across much better than I can.

But so far this has got to be the best ever post on GW for me.

A_fiend_for_life

moonrakerz wrote: »

If I remember correctly, 30 years ago the (what is now the Green Lobby) "experts" were warning of another ice age !

The only thing I remember about another ice age was part of the natural cycle rather than man made causes and that another ice age was overdue. My understanding is this was academic research and understanding at the time and was not viewed as something that could be prevented.

What was warned and campaigned against was nuclear weapons and the threat of a nuclear winter.

kaya

I can remember the "ice age" warnings in the 70's, i can't remember there political background but it was definately in the media when i was at school, Lets not forget that the people who predict man made global warming are only scientists, the same people who cannot cure the common cold yet or accurately tell me what the weather will be like next thursday afternoon, the same people who gave us thalidomide, put lead into petrol and paint, the list goes on--Scientists are normal people just like us, i could "scientificaly" prove to you that the sea was black, all i need is to devise an experiment to prove so and hey presto its scientific fact, it will stay as scientific fact until somebody designs/performs an experiment to prove otherwise-that's how science works, we believed the world was flat because a scientist told us so, untill somebody proved different, man made global warming theory will remain current until somebody devises an experiment to prove different, or until the passage of time proves different, we all know how difficult and contraversial it is to prove its existance so what chance has somebody without the power of the world media behind them got of proving the theory wrong?
Lets not forget the money train now chugging along behing man made global warming either-there are way too many people making far too much money from this "theory" already, do you think they are going to support any theory that makes them look dishonest? what about the politicians, governbent quango's and global comitties, do you think they will promote any theories tha make them look like con artists or will risk there livleyhoods?, Much egg to be had on there faces by doing a u turn now, how much money has been made by our very honest and trustworthy governers through taxes and charges based on man made global warming to date?
I think that yet again we have a case of "The Emperor wears no clothes" in our society, a very common occurance nowerdays,
the figures as i understand them are
97% of greenhouse gasses are water vapour
of the 3 % remaining a small percentage is C02, lets say 2% to keep people happy
of that 2 % c02 95% is naturlly occuring
so man made C02 accounts for 5% of 3% of the earths atmosphere, thats a very small amount indeed, it doesn't seem very likely that our 5% of 3% is significant enough to make a difference to me, there are many arguements supporting or against and as we're not scientists its a minefield of information we cannot process, but what i do know is politicians are liars, politicians have taxed us to death on it and that politicians dont admit there wrong and give refunds, also that the mean temperature of the planet is actually dropping at the moment, maybe we should call it "climate change " and drop the "global warming " angle? so we can extract more taxes maybe? after all the general public are to dumbed down to know any better and 87% of the population will follow an idea or ideal rather than think about the situation and make up there own mind, how many people have examined the facts as well as they can and how many are purely subscribing to somebody elses point of view because it fits or is easy for them to understand? because it's "uncle charlie's" view and he is cleverer than them so must be right?, it matters not to me what people think or what there opinions are on the subject, it only matters that people have investigated it to the best of there abilities before passing judgement and not just swallowed a spoon fed "conveniently truthfull" version provided by scaremongers, sensationalists and people who stand to gain financially from there beliefs/fears or lose face if they backpeddle

bonnie_2

Global warming is just a new religion. If your pure and chemical free you will save the world.
There are strong connections between worshipping the planet and god.
People always need something to believe in.
Think of all the money that the shops have had out of gullible people.
Organic this and that.
Government taxes.

Moggles_2

Originally Posted by kaya
It matters not to me what people think or what there opinions are on the subject, it only matters that people have investigated it to the best of there abilities before passing judgement and not just swallowed a spoon fed "conveniently truthfull" version provided by scaremongers, sensationalists and people who stand to gain financially from there beliefs/fears or lose face if they backpeddle

Human nature being what it is, I daresay you'd find some that answer this description in both camps.

However, it's always easier to sell an idea that people basically want to hear, isn't it?

To deny humanity's contribution to global warming is a popular message, because it absolves us from responsibility and gives the go ahead for business as usual. We (by which I mean governments as well as individuals) can carry on in our own sweet way and quit making any effort whatever to mitigate it's effects.