Global Warming

[mld]

Hmm. This is the usual instance of people plucking points out without relevance. It is the trend that is important, not the individual data. If you want to claim cold days as proof against global warming you have to accept any hot days as proof for global warming. I guess it is probably easier to get personal and slag off people you don't agree with though, seems to be the path of the self-appointed 'sceptic' true believers.

mld,
I don't think I got personal at all or slagged anyone off. ???
I have my opinion on the issue and disagree with others, so what?
If anyone has copped personal slaggings on some of these threads, it has usually been myself.
So stop your sooking and get on with the thread.

I didn't direct that at you. It was directed at the general trend of self-appointed 'sceptics' to spend most of their time focussing on the perceived negatives of their opponents (leftists, treehuggers, whatever) than on the data.

Regardless, the point that it is the trend that is important still stands. Plucking individual data points out is meaningless.

 

[ssstone]

The Nasa one is 2003, the BBC one 2000. I read a new Scientist article a couple of months ago that the trend showed a decrease, and it was happening faster than thought, but along the lines of what was expected. The UN staement of August 2006 you put there is in line with the article I read.

My point stands. a) We have an effect on macro environmental factors, b) following that, we can act to fix problems, c) Our lifestyles won't be substantively affected, ie, we'll still be able to do all the stuff we do now.

so t.s i guess it comes down to what you read and WANT to believe.speaking of reading ,i read an interesting article lately that said 2000 years ago that greenlands CLIMATE was a hell of lot warmer.(pun intended) apparently they being scientists have discovered evidence of forests of yew and pine and insect life ? now what caused the GLOBAL COOLING ???my point is and has always been any change in CLIMATE is just "mother nature's" doing.

 

[newyorktiger]

2000 years ago the population was roughly 200,000,000 - it's now 6,500,000,000.

My argument is that the scientists may be wrong - they've been wrong before.

However, we don't have anywhere else to go if we screw it up.

So why are we not doing the utmost to retain the climate status quo (a status quo that we can effectively guarantee human existence) rather than doing nothing, and effectively crossing our fingers that Mother Nature will look after itself.

We don't know the impact our current lifestyle and existencehas on the planet long-term, so isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

I now have a daughter, so maybe my perspective's changed a little, and I would like her and her children to lead to live a comfortable existence.

 

[mld]

The Nasa one is 2003, the BBC one 2000. I read a new Scientist article a couple of months ago that the trend showed a decrease, and it was happening faster than thought, but along the lines of what was expected. The UN staement of August 2006 you put there is in line with the article I read.

My point stands. a) We have an effect on macro environmental factors, b) following that, we can act to fix problems, c) Our lifestyles won't be substantively affected, ie, we'll still be able to do all the stuff we do now.

so t.s i guess it comes down to what you read and WANT to believe.speaking of reading ,i read an interesting article lately that said 2000 years ago that greenlands CLIMATE was a hell of lot warmer.(pun intended) apparently they being scientists have discovered evidence of forests of yew and pine and insect life ? now what caused the GLOBAL COOLING ???my point is and has always been any change in CLIMATE is just "mother nature's" doing.

The fact that climate can change naturally does not mean humans are unable to affect climate.

 

[ssstone]

mld i never said humans are unable to affect climate.what i have said the hysteria and bordering on religous fervor shown by some to a natural blip in weather conditions is a joke. even the pm of england is blaming their flooding on CLIMATE CHANGE :spin :spin history shows that every 20 to 12 years england suffers this.which is no differant to taxy bracksy standingin bairnsdale proclaiming that yes the mitchell river will flood again whilist he was comfortable in the knowledge that he appeased the same hysterics by not damming the mitchell which not only prevented a fair bit of flooding,it also would of stored/caught melbournes yearly supply of water in one storm.

 

[mld]

I agree there is a lot of silliness involved in the debate. Check out my link on carbon offsetting for a clear critique on that industry. There is clearly a correlation between the addition of carbon to the ecosystem and increasing global temperature though.

 

[ssstone]

I agree there is a lot of silliness involved in the debate. Check out my link on carbon offsetting for a clear critique on that industry. There is clearly a correlation between the addition of carbon to the ecosystem and increasing global temperature though.

allright mld lets pretend i agree with the data and the scientists.was it then a lack of carbon that contributed to global cooling that resulted in greenland losing its forest's and insect life ?not trying to be a smartass .just debating my opinion

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

If you are referring to the 'Little Ice Age' that led to the dying out of the Greenland colonies it was most likely caused by decreased solar activity in conjunction with increased volcanic activity. Greenhouse gases are but one component in the complex system determining global climate patterns. What is clear is that past increases in CO2 are associated with increased average global temperatures and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere currently is more than has ever been there, at least while humans have been around.

I agree that unwarranted hysteria can be counter-productive, however there are indications that this particular issue does require attention - that is if you want to maintain the same quality of life that we currently enjoy.

 

[tigersnake]

I agree that unwarranted hysteria can be counter-productive, however there are indications that this particular issue does require attention - that is if you want to maintain the same quality of life that we currently enjoy.

Don't buy into the flat earth hype pants tearer tigerette.There is no hysteria. Its the old right-wing, a thankfully rapidly shrinking faction though, tactic of setting up a straw man to belittle the opposition.

Either that or they don't know the definition of hysteria. I don't see coastal realestate markets collapsing, I don't see mass exodus fromlow lying areas, social breakdown etc etc.

Apparently stating what is going on and various possibilities of what might happen is hysteria. If that is 'hysteria' its a good thing.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

 

[Disco08]

Been following the debate in the UK about Gore's movie being used in schools Pantera?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Was that the court ruling where 9 scientifically unfounded assertions must be discussed when the doco is viewed in the classroom?

 

[Disco08]

Yeah that's the one. The doco isn't part of standard Aussie curriculum is it?

 

[Six Pack]

Yep, many local schools here have been using it as part of the Science key learning area.

 

[Liverpool]

I have no problem people showing Gore's film in schools.....as long as they show a film/documentary from the other side of the argument.

Then the kids can make up their own minds, or start researching more themsleves, instead of just getting told one view, and that's it....most kids would just accept that then.
By showing two sides of the story, it would encourage kids be more proactive about making their own minds up.

 

[Disco08]

Still not convinced it's an issue huh Livers?

 

[Six Pack]

Still not convinced it's an issue huh Livers?

No, I think he does concede it's an issue. On another thread he linked water levels to immigration levels. it's obviously a factor in his thinking.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I have no problem people showing Gore's film in schools.....as long as they show a film/documentary from the other side of the argument.

Then the kids can make up their own minds, or start researching more themsleves, instead of just getting told one view, and that's it....most kids would just accept that then.
By showing two sides of the story, it would encourage kids be more proactive about making their own minds up.

Or better yet, provide them with the evidence and let them decide based on that. You can provide opinion from both sides of the debate, but the scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and human activity is playing a role in that change. Both sides of the argument do not have equal support.

 

[barty boy]

Just wondering what it would take for the doubters of climate change to change their mind.Would it then be too late?

 

[Liverpool]

Still not convinced it's an issue huh Livers?

Disco,
Instead of typing my view on thsi for the 1001st time, I will just paste a previous post to answer your question:

Its not that you don't want us to panic, none of us do, you don't wan't us to do anything. You see any recognition of the problem and action as panicing. Its not, its recognising a problem and acting.

Tigersnake,
Where did I say not to do anything?
I have agreed with you all along that the earth IS warming....and I will state it one last time for you:
The Earth is warming.
If that is not recognising the world is getting warmer, then I don't know what else to say? :-\
Like i stated.....by all means, ride your bike to work instead of driving your car....throw your glass and paper in your yellow bin...buy 'clean and green' whitegoods, and turn off your lights when not in the room....re-use your laundry water.....plant a tree....go for it!
I've never said for people to stop doing any such things, as they will be good for your health and well-being and make your community look better.

And again, we don't have to change our entire lives. Just be smarter how we do things.

I agree, Tigersnake.
No harm in doing things smarter.
But in the "big picture", I think global warming is more of a 'natural' occurrence, rather than a man-made phenomenon......but your 'smarter' way of doing things won't harm things, so go for it....knock yourself out.

Or better yet, provide them with the evidence and let them decide based on that. You can provide opinion from both sides of the debate, but the scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and human activity is playing a role in that change. Both sides of the argument do not have equal support.

So because both sides don't have equal support, then the majority must be right? ???
Maybe the minority just have the better scientists?