Global Warming

[tigersnake]

Is it real or not, too many decent arguments from both sides

the concept of 'both sides' here needs to be illuminated. Scientifically speaking '2 sides' is a misnomer. If you believe in the power of science, curing disease, flying to the moon etc, there are not really 2 sides. It would be like saying Collingwood at full strength v an injury ravaged Waubra are 2 sides.

Politically, however, there are definately 2 sides. Very powerful vested interests bent on muddying the scientific waters are doing very well indeed. I'd venture they have the upper hand at the moment. But is that due to superior political skill and power or simply because they are saying what people want to hear? I don't know. The fact that our way of life is severely damaging the planet is not an easy fact to swallow.

 

[Giardiasis]

the concept of 'both sides' here needs to be illuminated. Scientifically speaking '2 sides' is a misnomer. If you believe in the power of science, curing disease, flying to the moon etc, there are not really 2 sides. It would be like saying Collingwood at full strength v an injury ravaged Waubra are 2 sides.

Tell that to Ignaz Semmelweis.

 

[Brodders17]

Tell that to Ignaz Semmelweis.

So an early pioneer came up with a theory that suggested change was needed, those in positions of power derided him and didnt change their ways because they could not see the direct impact their actions were having and it would cause inconvenience to do so.
in the end he was proved right and the change was made, for the good of all. is that your point?

 

[Liverpool]

Tigersnake,

You are correct, there aren't two sides at all.

The problem is that when anyone questions the validity of global warming due to man-made emissions, they are quickly labelled a "global warming denier" or a "climate change sceptic".

I for one do think that due to Earth having had many massive physical changes throughout its history, such as continents separating and such things as the Ice Age, with not an ounce of man-made emissions affecting such radical transformations, then it is quite arrogant for us to think that our emissions are the main contributor to global warming.

See, I am not a "global warming denier" or a "climate change sceptic".

I'm not saying global warming is a fallacy or false, I'm simply saying that there may be greater forces at work here that will determine the path we go down with our climate and our planet, regardless of whether we recycle, ban coal, or run the Earth by wind turbines.
This is why I am against the carbon tax for this country, as not only do I think that the Earth's climate is changing naturally with man-made emissions are very small contributor, but we also have many other countries who spew out far more emissions than Australia.
How is the Earth going to be a better place, and in particularly Australia, when we produce less than 3% of the global emissions and there is no glass dome protecting us from other country's emissions?

Does that mean we should give up on alternative energies?
No, of course not.
But we shouldn't be doing it using taxes and environmental scare tactics to make it happen.
Its should be done purely as a normal technological revolution and an advancement in the way we do things...no different to people going from typewriters to computers, or horse & carts to automobiles.
It should be done to improve what we do and how we do it. It should be done because we are running out of fossil fuels and we do need to start looking at other ways to power things. It shouldn't be done because of people demanding we change because we are being accused of damaging the planet.
Businesses and people should be encouraged and rewarded for looking at alternative methods, not punished if they don't fall into line of what one side of politics or science believes.

 

[Giardiasis]

So an early pioneer came up with a theory that suggested change was needed, those in positions of power derided him and didnt change their ways because they could not see the direct impact their actions were having and it would cause inconvenience to do so.
in the end he was proved right and the change was made, for the good of all. is that your point?

Ignaz represents sceptical thought to rigidly established theories from the scientific community. Your last line will hopefully ring true, that a change is made (i.e. destructive AGW is recognised as nonsense), and destructive policies to fix a non-problem are put in the dustbin of history for the good of all!

 

[tigersnake]

Ignaz represents sceptical thought to rigidly established theories from the scientific community. Your last line will hopefully ring true, that a change is made (i.e. destructive AGW is recognised as nonsense), and destructive policies to fix a non-problem are put in the dustbin of history for the good of all!

I didn't say Waubra wouldn't win. Its highly unlikely, but it would be possible. I was just putting the so called 2 sides of the scientific debate into perspective.

 

[poppa x]

Being a lot older than most here, I have vivid memories of the coming Ice Age that was widely predicted in the 60's and 70's.
This video should be compulsory for anyone young enough to need a quick history lesson.
It may not change your opinions and probably won't. But it should at the very least raise the question "are we being conned - again?" And if so by who?

[youtube=560,315]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttLBqB0qDko&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

 

[Freezer]

Tigersnake,

You are correct, there aren't two sides at all.

The problem is that when anyone questions the validity of global warming due to man-made emissions, they are quickly labelled a "global warming denier" or a "climate change sceptic".

I for one do think that due to Earth having had many massive physical changes throughout its history, such as continents separating and such things as the Ice Age, with not an ounce of man-made emissions affecting such radical transformations, then it is quite arrogant for us to think that our emissions are the main contributor to global warming.

See, I am not a "global warming denier" or a "climate change sceptic".

I'm not saying global warming is a fallacy or false, I'm simply saying that there may be greater forces at work here that will determine the path we go down with our climate and our planet, regardless of whether we recycle, ban coal, or run the Earth by wind turbines.
This is why I am against the carbon tax for this country, as not only do I think that the Earth's climate is changing naturally with man-made emissions are very small contributor, but we also have many other countries who spew out far more emissions than Australia.
How is the Earth going to be a better place, and in particularly Australia, when we produce less than 3% of the global emissions and there is no glass dome protecting us from other country's emissions?

Does that mean we should give up on alternative energies?
No, of course not.
But we shouldn't be doing it using taxes and environmental scare tactics to make it happen.
Its should be done purely as a normal technological revolution and an advancement in the way we do things...no different to people going from typewriters to computers, or horse & carts to automobiles.
It should be done to improve what we do and how we do it. It should be done because we are running out of fossil fuels and we do need to start looking at other ways to power things. It shouldn't be done because of people demanding we change because we are being accused of damaging the planet.
Businesses and people should be encouraged and rewarded for looking at alternative methods, not punished if they don't fall into line of what one side of politics or science believes.

Quality.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Quality.

Good to see the Freezer cheer squad is in effect.

If any of you denialists/skeptics (that is what it is Livers - it is not a dismissal) really want your position to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective you need to point out the flaws in the climate models and provide a better model that fits the data. Funnily enough more qualified individuals than yourselves haven't been able to do so, hence the AGW consensus stands.

It is ironic that you would call the science "arrogant" when you dismiss the science, the work of thousands of scientists from a multitude of disciplines, with a quick paragraph on your keyboard.

Classic canards such as 'scientists have been wrong before' cloud the fact that the scientific process has led to most of the advances that underpin modern society. It is never perfect, but is the only method of knowledge acquisition that actively and methodically improves and refines its conclusions (the theories) based on the available data. Scientist also tend to err on the conservative side when drawing conclusions. Their colleagues and peers would quickly address any overstepping as that is how the process works. AGW is no different. It is the best theory to describe what we know about the climate and our emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Just stating 'I don't believe it' or 'the system is SO complex' disregards these facts.

 

[AngryAnt]

It should be done to improve what we do and how we do it. It should be done because we are running out of fossil fuels and we do need to start looking at other ways to power things. It shouldn't be done because of people demanding we change because we are being accused of damaging the planet.
Businesses and people should be encouraged and rewarded for looking at alternative methods, not punished if they don't fall into line of what one side of politics or science believes.

Capital suggestion old chap. So we should also stop subsidizing the inefficient fossil fuel industry with the estimated $12 billion AUD in various types of subsidies that we do every year in Australia right now.

After all, taxpayers and businesses should not be punished by having to prop up a sunset industry through taxes that we all have to pay. The savings we gain from removing these inefficient subsidies can be invested in the promotion of renewable and clean energies, while the withdrawal of inefficient fossil fuel subsidies will mean that fossil fuel prices will go up, making renewables more cost effective faster.

 

[Azza]

I for one do think that due to Earth having had many massive physical changes throughout its history, such as continents separating and such things as the Ice Age, with not an ounce of man-made emissions affecting such radical transformations, then it is quite arrogant for us to think that our emissions are the main contributor to global warming.

Climate changes due to continental drift and orbital forcing are firstly predictable and secondly EXTREMELY slow. We're talking about thousands of years at the maximum (deglaciation). Seeing people like Reinhart criticising the Age for not publishing this sort of material scarily demonstrates what a limited intellectual base someone who wants to influence public policy comes from.

The global warming we're seeing is happening much faster than those processes and the only clear variable it coincides with is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission.

 

[mld]

Capital suggestion old chap. So we should also stop subsidizing the inefficient fossil fuel industry with the estimated $12 billion AUD in various types of subsidies that we do every year in Australia right now.

This should definitely have been done before implementation of the carbon tax. It is a bit of a farce that we will be subsidising with one hand and taxing with the other.

 

[Sintiger]

This should definitely have been done before implementation of the carbon tax. It is a bit of a farce that we will be subsidising with one hand and taxing with the other.

I spent many years working for Corporates in the multi national environment. My experience is that if you subsidise a company to do something they will generally take the money gladly and do the absolute minimum necessary to appear to be complying with the terms of the subsidy. Hit them on the bottom line for non compliance and they will do a simple arithmetic calculation which would be what is the greater cost, the penalty or the compliance.

It may be a cynical view but my experience tells me that business reacts much better to the stick than to the carrot.

 

[mld]

I spent many years working for Corporates in the multi national environment. My experience is that if you subsidise a company to do something they will generally take the money gladly and do the absolute minimum necessary to appear to be complying with the terms of the subsidy. Hit them on the bottom line for non compliance and they will do a simple arithmetic calculation which would be what is the greater cost, the penalty or the compliance.

It may be a cynical view but my experience tells me that business reacts much better to the stick than to the carrot.

I think you got the wrong end of that exchange in your reply. It wasn't about whether subsidy or tax was the best way to encourage companies to reduce emissions (carrot or stick analogy); it was about subsidies in place that encourage use of fossil fuels.

I'm completely on board with you about corporate welfare, which is another good reason for any subsidy that supports fossil fuel use to be dropped.

 

[Liverpool]

Good to see the Freezer cheer squad is in effect.

If any of you denialists/skeptics (that is what it is Livers - it is not a dismissal) really want your position to be taken seriously from a scientific perspective you need to point out the flaws in the climate models and provide a better model that fits the data. Funnily enough more qualified individuals than yourselves haven't been able to do so, hence the AGW consensus stands.

It is ironic that you would call the science "arrogant" when you dismiss the science, the work of thousands of scientists from a multitude of disciplines, with a quick paragraph on your keyboard.

Classic canards such as 'scientists have been wrong before' cloud the fact that the scientific process has led to most of the advances that underpin modern society. It is never perfect, but is the only method of knowledge acquisition that actively and methodically improves and refines its conclusions (the theories) based on the available data. Scientist also tend to err on the conservative side when drawing conclusions. Their colleagues and peers would quickly address any overstepping as that is how the process works. AGW is no different. It is the best theory to describe what we know about the climate and our emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Just stating 'I don't believe it' or 'the system is SO complex' disregards these facts.

I'm not saying 'science is arrogant'...as there are scientists in both the 'man did it' and 'its happening naturally' camps with data to prove or debunk their opponents.
It seems that the pro-'man did it' camp are very quick to jump on science as the proof in their argument but only when it suits and any other scientists with a different opinion are either right-wing nutcases, labelled a denier/sceptic, or accused of being paid-off by oil companies and other groups.

And I'm not a denier/sceptic.
To me, there are 3 camps:
1. deniers/sceptics are the ones who believe global warming is not happening at all
2. you also have a camp where people believe global warming is caused by man-made pollutants
3. and I'm in the camp where I believe global warming is happening but mostly by natural means

You talk about "disregarding the facts"....well, you only have to watch "An Inconvenient Truth" to see this in all its glory!
FFS...we have Manhattan getting inundated with water from the Hudson River...which would take thousands of years to happen with the pace of the ice shelfs melting at its current rate.
In fact, the IPCC stated that the water levels will only rise approximately 43cm this century...so I think Manhattan will survive for a while yet

We also have this photo:

which was used in "Science" magazine.
Ironically, the article it was linked to was stating how scientists are getting a raw deal over global warming and accused of faking data....so they use a fake/photoshopped photo in their 'serious' article! :cutelaugh

The problem I have in all this is that if the pro-'man did it' group are right and the world is indeed suffering from accelerated global warming caused by man-made pollutants, why not stick with the facts?
Why use scare tactics, cheap tricks, fake images, and emotional propaganda to try and convince people they are right?

As you can see, when it comes to "disregarding the facts" and 'scientists erring on the side of caution"...then that may not be exactly true.

Climate changes due to continental drift and orbital forcing are firstly predictable and secondly EXTREMELY slow. We're talking about thousands of years at the maximum (deglaciation). Seeing people like Reinhart criticising the Age for not publishing this sort of material scarily demonstrates what a limited intellectual base someone who wants to influence public policy comes from.

The global warming we're seeing is happening much faster than those processes and the only clear variable it coincides with is anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission.

Like I said yesterday...I don't doubt global warming is happening...but I also believe that there is enough science out there to question the validity of the main reason it is happening.
I also agree that maybe global warming is indeed accelerated by man-made pollutants, but is it accelerated from the million year mark down to the three-quarter of a million year mark?
Is our 3% of global emissions really going to make THAT much of a difference?

I remember back in the 1980s when I was at school...it wasn't called "global warming"....it was before "climate change" even...it was called the "greenhouse effect" and if we didn't stop using aerosol cans and the blue polystyrene containers that had my fillet-o-fish in them, then the Gold Coast was going to be under water by 2020 and the ozone would be destroyed and we'd have eternal summers of 40+ degrees :cutelaugh
This stuff has been going on for years mate.

 

[Sintiger]

I think you got the wrong end of that exchange in your reply. It wasn't about whether subsidy or tax was the best way to encourage companies to reduce emissions (carrot or stick analogy); it was about subsidies in place that encourage use of fossil fuels.

I'm completely on board with you about corporate welfare, which is another good reason for any subsidy that supports fossil fuel use to be dropped.

Ok, I did misunderstand.

 

[Azza]

3. and I'm in the camp where I believe global warming is happening but mostly by natural means

Which natural means? Nobody can find one. That's the point. How long are we going to keep looking before we accept the one that's staring us in the face?

Like I said yesterday...I don't doubt global warming is happening...but I also believe that there is enough science out there to question the validity of the main reason it is happening.
I also agree that maybe global warming is indeed accelerated by man-made pollutants, but is it accelerated from the million year mark down to the three-quarter of a million year mark?
Is our 3% of global emissions really going to make THAT much of a difference?

You really need to stop quoting the geological timescale stuff. It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[tigersnake]

Ithe ozone would be destroyed and we'd have eternal summers of 40+ degrees :cutelaugh
This stuff has been going on for years mate.

yeah it has been going on for years. Ozone depletion is a separate issue and a very interesting one from a public policy perspective. After a global ban on CFCs in the 90s concentrations have been decreasing rapidly. The hole over Antractica is repairing faster than anyone thought. Scientists say it will be back on track by 2025 and fixed by 2050. Its a good example of international policy unity and longer-term thinking, but its small beer compared to AGW.

 

[AngryAnt]

I'm not saying 'science is arrogant'...as there are scientists in both the 'man did it' and 'its happening naturally' camps with data to prove or debunk their opponents.
It seems that the pro-'man did it' camp are very quick to jump on science as the proof in their argument but only when it suits and any other scientists with a different opinion are either right-wing nutcases, labelled a denier/sceptic, or accused of being paid-off by oil companies and other groups.

That's a very long and convoluted way of saying that the body of scientific evidence strongly supports the AGW theory.

We also have this photo:

which was used in "Science" magazine.
Ironically, the article it was linked to was stating how scientists are getting a raw deal over global warming and accused of faking data....so they use a fake/photoshopped photo in their 'serious' article! :cutelaugh

And there are many genuine images of polar bears on ice floes - that's what they do.

Here's the correction that Science ran at the time:

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
P. H. Gleick et al.

Correction

Due to an editorial error, the original image associated with this Letter was not a photograph but a collage. The image was selected by the editors, and it was a mistake to have used it. The original image has been replaced in the online HTML and PDF versions of the article with an unaltered photograph from National Geographic.

This is the image they replaced the collaged image with.

One is real, one is a collage. Now tell me how the change in image changes the context or meaning of the Science story.

The problem I have in all this is that if the pro-'man did it' group are right and the world is indeed suffering from accelerated global warming caused by man-made pollutants, why not stick with the facts?
Why use scare tactics, cheap tricks, fake images, and emotional propaganda to try and convince people they are right?

Because as with any politically debated issue, facts pass through a filter of argument/PR/FUD and this occurs on both sides of any debate. However, the fact that because Science Magazine used a photoshopped image of a polar bear in 2005 does not invalidate science generally or reality specifically.

Like I said yesterday...I don't doubt global warming is happening...but I also believe that there is enough science out there to question the validity of the main reason it is happening.

Where is this science that you "believe" in? What makes you "believe" in it?

I remember back in the 1980s when I was at school...it wasn't called "global warming"....it was before "climate change" even...it was called the "greenhouse effect" and if we didn't stop using aerosol cans and the blue polystyrene containers that had my fillet-o-fish in them, then the Gold Coast was going to be under water by 2020 and the ozone would be destroyed and we'd have eternal summers of 40+ degrees :cutelaugh
This stuff has been going on for years mate.

You are confusing what was called the "Greenhouse effect" and the depletion of ozone in the atmostphere, but on the latter, an absolutely superb example of an anthropogenic impact on the atmosphere, and how a global reduction in the use of CFCs appears to be correcting the problem. Cheers mate!

 

[Liverpool]

Which natural means? Nobody can find one. That's the point. How long are we going to keep looking before we accept the one that's staring us in the face?

If its staring us in the face, why is there so much conjecture?
Because its not as clear cut as many are making out.

There have been natural cycles that have affected the earth for millenia, and yes, while these can be predicted somewhat, there are also other natural phenomena that can also change the climate.
For example, sunspots and the intensity of the sun's radiation (2012 has already seen one of the biggest solar flares hit earth)
Even events such as Krakatoa in the 1800s caused the planet's temperature to fall 1.2 degrees the following year.
The Japan earthquake/tsunami shifted the earth's axis 4-inches.
The Icelandic volcano in 2010 emitted an amount of CO2 in a day which placed it approximately in the top-50 emitters over the course of the year in Europe, rivalling Austria, Ireland, and Portugal.

Surely just this handful of natural events alone would have an affect on the planet's climate???