Do you believe in man made climate change?

[melias shoes]

Yes, as do pretty much all environmental scientists, of which I am one.

So you're paid to say it then.?

 

[Hamilton]

So you're paid to say it then.?

Ok. Doctors are paid to tell people what they can do to live healthier lives. Because they are paid to do it does it mean that what they say is not true?

 

[beorhthelm]

Ok. Doctors are paid to tell people what they can do to live healthier lives. Because they are paid to do it does it mean that what they say is not true?

ah, good comparison, because however well intentioned sometimes they get diagnosis and prognosis wrong. some subscribe to different schools of tought, different methods, different objectives and maybe heavily swayed by prevailing paradigms that later prove incorrect.

 

[Hamilton]

ah, good comparison, because however well intentioned sometimes they get diagnosis and prognosis wrong. some subscribe to different schools of tought, different methods, different objectives and maybe heavily swayed by prevailing paradigms that later prove incorrect.

I see, so listening to your doctor is a waste of time. How do you diagnose and treat yourself when you are unwell then? Dr Google?

 

[beorhthelm]

I see, so listening to your doctor is a waste of time.

because thats what i said. oh, nope wasnt anywhere close.

 

[Notters]

So you're paid to say it then.?

Nope, my profession has little to do with climate change. In fact it is at odds with climate change as I'm paid to ensure that new developments happen. But I've had a great deal of teaching and done a great deal of reading with regard to what is and isn't happening.

 

[Hamilton]

because thats what i said. oh, nope wasnt anywhere close.

And that's not what I was illustrating with my point either. Nope, nowhere close.

Come on, you know as well as I that whether you are a doctor or an environmental scientist, you are pretty well qualified to talk about your specialist field with some authority.

What's pretty clear is that the majority of doctors and the majority of scientists are fairly agreed on certain points. One can always find a Dr Andrew Wakefield in the crowd to lead people astray.

 

[Husty]

Or, perhaps i was being a little tongue in cheek, and btw I wouldn't have the Express in my house

Fair enough, although sadly there are a lot of people who wouldn't have it in their cheek and do have it in their house.

 

[Giraffe]

Anyone that doesn't believe in it is a fool. YOu only have to go to glacias as I have done and seen the year on year regression to understand it. And look what is happening to the Arctic Ice. Nightmare.

 

[symyjym]

Anyone that doesn't believe in it is a fool. YOu only have to go to glacias as I have done and seen the year on year regression to understand it. And look what is happening to the Arctic Ice. Nightmare.

Although it is reported that the ice in the Arctic has increased over the last few years?

 

[beorhthelm]

Come on, you know as well as I that whether you are a doctor or an environmental scientist, you are pretty well qualified to talk about your specialist field with some authority.

very well qualified, i only offer that sometimes they might be incorrect. or in a decade or generations time, the concensus might be different. the environmental science already has a track record of adjusting their claims to suit the current wind.

Anyone that doesn't believe in it is a fool. YOu only have to go to glacias as I have done and seen the year on year regression to understand it. And look what is happening to the Arctic Ice. Nightmare.

and what of the Himalayan glaciers that are growing and the Antarctic? what of the temperature rises that havent occured in the past decade as predicted. prehaps we've done enough? but that CO2 graph is linear so how does that square?

 

[Husty]

Anyone that doesn't believe in it is a fool. YOu only have to go to glacias as I have done and seen the year on year regression to understand it. And look what is happening to the Arctic Ice. Nightmare.

Really poor example, the glaciers were shrinking long before we started having a meaningful impact on the planet, and the reason they shrink is reduced precipitation more than increased temperature, but many of our models point towards increased precipitation.

 

[The Upper Library]

I don't know - but do find it interesting that weather that fits the climate change scenario (i.e. excessive rain or wind etc) is highlighted as such. However when we had a decent amount of snow and cold weather for a few winters it was regarded as just normal weather?

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Yes, but I don't have proof. Whether or not you believe it, we need to change.

I'd like to rant away, nut I am tired and bruised from another day at work .

Sealife shouldn't be dying by choking on plastic. Plastic should not be thrown away.

We shouldn't be destroying natural habitats for the sake of producing food when 50% of it is wasted.

We shouldn't be washing our cars or watering our gardens with cleaner water than is available to many millions.

I don't want to pay for plastic waste which is not recyclable.

On a more precise level - please do make things like chargers/power leads compatible with all mod cons. I don't want a new charger everytime I buy a new phone/gadget.

If most of these measures mean that further people would slip below the poverty line then share the wealth. Lots of people do their jobs for the love of it. Why does someone like Mittal need $50bn or whatever the family have.

 

[Blackadder]

Professor Winston just made some very good points on Question Time. Scientists have been warning for years. Hundreds of Thousands will perish in Bangladesh.

 

[Shropshire Seagull]

How long will the earth last for if gradually weather is getting worse?

The weather will not destroy the earth, it only damages man-made things or things that impact on the human habitation of this planet.

Some folk are still missing the point of this thread - it's not asking if climate is changing, it very obviously is, the question is; are we humans the cause or is it just nature's way?

 

[Machiavelli]

Professor Winston just made some very good points on Question Time. Scientists have been warning for years. Hundreds of Thousands will perish in Bangladesh.

I agree with the thrust of your point, but you've repeated (or are repeating what Winston said) the way in which climate change is usually characterised, which is as a far off, distant threat. It's with us now, and this moment is as good as any to invoke this point. So, thousands have already perished in Bangladesh. Nicholas Stern makes the same point in his latest intervention into this debate.

 

[Machiavelli]

So you're paid to say it then.?

Yes. Very good. There's a pretty good correlation between the quality of posters and their propensity to use that winking emoticon.
You use an argument that those who are paid to say things will do so in their own interest. Could you identify all those previous posts you've made, where you've applied this argument to the financial sector, or even those that promote the interests of the financial sector? Because by the logic of your argument, because their paid so much, they're more likely to say it.

 

[melias shoes]

Nope, my profession has little to do with climate change. In fact it is at odds with climate change as I'm paid to ensure that new developments happen. But I've had a great deal of teaching and done a great deal of reading with regard to what is and isn't happening.

Ok thanks. That was the answer I was looking for not inference from others.

 

[Norman Potting]

Yes, on the basis that a larger proportion of it is naturally occurring/cyclical but that man made emissions are helping or maybe even hindering it. I am sure we are all fully behind any effort to reduce our own impact provided it doesn't mean any noticeable impact to our personal wealth or lifestyle!