Global warming - What's your "opinion"?

[Raleigh Chopper]

I heared that Luton is the centre of global warming in the UK.
Apparently it's because of all the fridges in the front gardens.

 

[larus]

With all due repect here Larus, if your reading on the subject is anything like your reading of my post then i would take it with a grain of salt as you have not addressed a single point I made.

So I will try again.

My question is not about the validity of the science or proving manmade climate change is or is not a reality. It is more about the action we take based on what we know.

You seem to be suggesting here that you believe that man-made climate change is a possibility? I suspect that all we differ on in this debate is the size of that possibility.

My question is, why not take steps based on that possibility? I don't understand which of the proposed solutions you think will have a negative effect?

Renewable energy is a necessity anyway as we are running out of fossil fuels.
Cleaner emissions can hardly be a bad thing can it, reducing smog and other polutants has got to be better for our health.
Recycling makes our limited resources last longer.

Am I missing something that is so bad that it isn't worth trying just in case it is real?

Let me answer some of your points.

1. I accept that Man is emitting Co2.
2. The impact of out Co2 emissions in comparison to the natural Co2 cycle is quite small.
3. The effect of Co2 in terms of retaining heat is marginal. There are many more factors which the AGW activists dismiss out of hand.
4. I differentiate between Co2 and pollution. As soon as I see people try to compare smog to Co2 then I realise they they do not understand the issue of Co2 in the atmosphere. You have again linked pollution to Co2 (smog and other pollutants). I agree that we should not pollute but Co2 is not pollution it is a natural occuring trace gas and life on earth would cease to exist "overnight" (yes, not literally) without it.
5. We keep being told that natural resources (fossil fuels) are running out. The reality is we keep finding more and more efficient ways of extracting them. Investing in renewables is a sensible longer term aim, but this should not be out of fear of Co2 or fossil fuels running out any time soon.

May I ask, why do you refer to Co2 and smog on this? Smog is not caused by an increase in Co2 from 0.0287% to 0.04% of the atmosphere.

 

[larus]

the man has spoken, the man without an ounce of credibility in the field of climate science has read a lot on the subject and therefore anyone who proposes an alternative point of view is wrong.

Including academics who research this subject as a career..

Of dear, you are confusing the facts with the guesswork/assumptions.

Fact : Antarctica is gaining more Ice Mass than it is losing.

Assumption from NASA. This is because of global warming causing more snow. Like all of these assumptions from organisations such as the IPCC, they are guesswork. Their doctrine is global warming and when something doesn't agree with that (you know, like when they said that there would be lots of glacial melting/loss of antarctic ice), the reason why their predictions were wrong is still global warming.

Do you accept that organisations can be politicised? By this I mean, the people put in charge of say NASA, NOAA, EPA can be political biased to promote the message of their masters? The reason I ask this is that Obama was a green agenda president and his appointments would no doubt reflect this. Trump is currently changing the head of the EPA for someone who is not a green-agenda person so lets see how the reporting of climate issues change over the next few years.

 

[Fungus]

Co2 is plant food. More Co2 is good for the planet.

Not so simple, though.
Plants and trees can only absorb so much CO2, especially when trees are felled on a massive scale.
Similarly, the oceans can only absorb so much before they acidify and start to feck up the invertebrates at the bottom of the global food chain, and also the phytoplankton that produces a lot of our oxygen. Not something to mess with.

 

[El Presidente]

Of dear, you are confusing the facts with the guesswork/assumptions.

Fact : Antarctica is gaining more Ice Mass than it is losing.

Assumption from NASA. This is because of global warming causing more snow. Like all of these assumptions from organisations such as the IPCC, they are guesswork. Their doctrine is global warming and when something doesn't agree with that (you know, like when they said that there would be lots of glacial melting/loss of antarctic ice), the reason why their predictions were wrong is still global warming.

Do you accept that organisations can be politicised? By this I mean, the people put in charge of say NASA, NOAA, EPA can be political biased to promote the message of their masters? The reason I ask this is that Obama was a green agenda president and his appointments would no doubt reflect this. Trump is currently changing the head of the EPA for someone who is not a green-agenda person so lets see how the reporting of climate issues change over the next few years.

Fact: Global sea ice is decreasing by more than the gain in the Antarctic though. Since 1996 the average loss has been 19,500 square miles a year.

 

[BadFish]

Let me answer some of your points.

1. I accept that Man is emitting Co2.
2. The impact of out Co2 emissions in comparison to the natural Co2 cycle is quite small.
3. The effect of Co2 in terms of retaining heat is marginal. There are many more factors which the AGW activists dismiss out of hand.
4. I differentiate between Co2 and pollution. As soon as I see people try to compare smog to Co2 then I realise they they do not understand the issue of Co2 in the atmosphere. You have again linked pollution to Co2 (smog and other pollutants). I agree that we should not pollute but Co2 is not pollution it is a natural occuring trace gas and life on earth would cease to exist "overnight" (yes, not literally) without it.
5. We keep being told that natural resources (fossil fuels) are running out. The reality is we keep finding more and more efficient ways of extracting them. Investing in renewables is a sensible longer term aim, but this should not be out of fear of Co2 or fossil fuels running out any time soon.

May I ask, why do you refer to Co2 and smog on this? Smog is not caused by an increase in Co2 from 0.0287% to 0.04% of the atmosphere.

As i have said, I think it is worth taking precaution just in case it is real.

I am going to post this video again as it pretty much sums up my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

IMHO there is enough certainty in the scientific sommunity to warrent us tackling the issue.

 

[BBassic]

Why do you believe Judith Curry but ignore the other climate scientists?

I'm curious about that as well.

 

[The Clamp]

Man made climate change is a fact. The only thing to debate is how to deal with it. It is too late for it to be stopped. Most scientists agree we passed the point of no return about 2 years ago.
Daft theories on variations of it being a falsehood are created to comfort those who, rightly, fear the outcome but that will not work.

 

[The Clamp]

Er, no. The Antarctic land mass is gaining ice. Also, in 2015 the Antarctic sea ice extent was at its HIGHEST level record in the satellite era. With the left-wing/green agenda we don't hear facts like this.

Care to provide sources to back up your claims?

 

[The Clamp]

All of the IPCC models have failed. They all predict a level of warming which we are just not seeing.

Before we had the last intense El-Nino (2015/16), there had been a hiatus with no warming trend for over 18 years. This was only broken by the strong El-Nino which has now ended, and temperatures are dropping back rapidly.

If CO2 was such an impact, then logically, as the level has got higher YOU WOULD EXPECT THE RATE OF WARMING TO INCREASE, but it's not. As I said, the hiatus in warming was 18 years and was only broken by the strong El-Nino.

All predictions from the Globull Warming side have failed:
1. There will be more hurricanes in the US. - Last cat 5 hurricane to hit the mainland US was Katrina in 2005.
2. There will be more tornados - tornado levels have been dropping for over 10 years.
3. The arctic will be ice-free by 2013, er well make that 2015, er ok now can we cat 2019 (or whatever the current date is).
4. We won't know what snow is in the UK - yeah, forgot about 2009 and 2010 winters eh.

Every event is not linked to CO2.

More rain.
Less rain.
More snow.
Less snow.
More storms.
Less storms.

Ffs, the climate is so frigging complex we don't understand it, yet a small change from 0.0287% to 0.04% of the atmosphere is going to wipe-out man.

One last point. CO2 is plant food and there has been a greening of the plant as CO2 has increased in the atmosphere.

Cold kills more people every year than heat, we should be grateful for any warming we get. Look at vegetation in cold parts of the world and then think of the tropics (don't say deserts as this is down to no rain, but if the planet warms then there will more moisture in the air leading to more rain).

You don't understand why deserts exist. In fact you understand very little. Huge chunks of cut and paste with no source links. I'm calling bullshit on this.

 

[pb21]

Climate change skeptics/deniers are finding stories/making things up/dismissing genuine science to fit their underlying politics.

These people don't like the idea of state influence, which will be required to help prevent the impact we are having.

They don't like that and instead are prepared to ignore the issue or tell themselves it doesn't matter.

 

[The Clamp]

Jesus Christ. How many more weasel words do you want to use to back your case?

It states that Antarctic land ice is increasing, but, so he stays "on message" he caveats lots of stuff to maybe link this to globull warming.
Oh, and the Western Peninsula is impacted by geothermal activity. Look at where the fault lines are and the underground heat from those which will be impacting the area.

Classic conspiracy theorist, half understood "science" post.

Breakdown:

Straight in with an insult born out of frustration that nobody is taking your poorly constructed, ill informed argument seriously.


Use of axioms, maxims and slang in the vain hope that it leads to people indentifying with your stance. cite :Globull.

Random and half explained mention of ideas that require an in depth explanation, tossed into a sentence to try and bolster the argument. ie
"Oh, and the Western Peninsula is impacted by geothermal activity. Look at where the fault lines are and the underground heat from those which will be impacting the area".

No explanation (due to no understanding) of how and why heat from fault lines affects an area, just an invite to "look at it".

Claiming that you have researched the subject thoroughly, and this reading has changed your mind. Trawling through the internet and watching hours of people like Alex Jones is not the equivalent of completing PHD's, doctorates, Masters and decades of qualified research ....

"I have done a lot of reading on the subject and I used to belive in Global Warming, but then after doing a lot of reading I reached the conclusion that the science is not settled and there are many, many uns answered questions".

Essentially calling all those who disagree with "sheeple", and flouncing off because you cannot supply credible refernces or sources and any you did post would clearly discredit yuor "argument"....

But, trying to have a sensible debate with people who are closed and just absorb what they read on the BBC, Guardian, etc. is futile."

No one is going to take you seriously. This is probably due to the fact that you are a ****ing moron.

 

[Randsta]

there should be an option that it exists but not 100% sure that it's all "Man's fault"

 

[larus]

As i have said, I think it is worth taking precaution just in case it is real.

I am going to post this video again as it pretty much sums up my opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ

IMHO there is enough certainty in the scientific sommunity to warrent us tackling the issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The scientists listed here are only those who have their own WIKI page. So, when I hear ordinary people saying the "science is settled" and there a numerous scientists who dispute this, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's not settled.

 

[The Clamp]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The scientists listed here are only those who have their own WIKI page. So, when I hear ordinary people saying the "science is settled" and there a numerous scientists who dispute this, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's not settled.

There are people that still claim the world is flat. Should we say that the world is round debate is not settled as well?

 

[larus]

Classic conspiracy theorist, half understood "science" post.

Breakdown:

Straight in with an insult born out of frustration that nobody is taking your poorly constructed, ill informed argument seriously.


Use of axioms, maxims and slang in the vain hope that it leads to people indentifying with your stance. cite :Globull.

Random and half explained mention of ideas that require an in depth explanation, tossed into a sentence to try and bolster the argument. ie
"Oh, and the Western Peninsula is impacted by geothermal activity. Look at where the fault lines are and the underground heat from those which will be impacting the area".

No explanation (due to no understanding) of how and why heat from fault lines affects an area, just an invite to "look at it".

Claiming that you have researched the subject thoroughly, and this reading has changed your mind. Trawling through the internet and watching hours of people like Alex Jones is not the equivalent of completing PHD's, doctorates, Masters and decades of qualified research ....

"I have done a lot of reading on the subject and I used to belive in Global Warming, but then after doing a lot of reading I reached the conclusion that the science is not settled and there are many, many uns answered questions".

Essentially calling all those who disagree with "sheeple", and flouncing off because you cannot supply credible refernces or sources and any you did post would clearly discredit yuor "argument"....

But, trying to have a sensible debate with people who are closed and just absorb what they read on the BBC, Guardian, etc. is futile."

No one is going to take you seriously. This is probably due to the fact that you are a ****ing moron.

You were an asswipe as nibble and yuo're still an asswipe. I don't bother to read any of your comments as you are totally irrelevant.

 

[larus]

Fact: Global sea ice is decreasing by more than the gain in the Antarctic though. Since 1996 the average loss has been 19,500 square miles a year.

Fact : 2014 was the highest level of Antarctic sea ice ever recorded. Doesn't exactly fit with a warming planet.

 

[The Clamp]

You were an asswipe as nibble and yuo're still an asswipe. I don't bother to read any of your comments as you are totally irrelevant.

Way wide of the mark with the old Nibble nonsense but a few numpties on here trot it out so I can see why someone who is clearly as easily lead as you would try and use it.

Of course you read my comments, it's why you are so upset. More Bullshit.

 

[Machiavelli]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...tream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

The scientists listed here are only those who have their own WIKI page. So, when I hear ordinary people saying the "science is settled" and there a numerous scientists who dispute this, I think it's reasonable to assume that it's not settled.

You quite clearly don't understand what the scientific method is. We do understand what your politics is. The predominant understanding of the scientific method is based on some form of falsificationism, whereby theories are tested, and some subsequent test might undermine a theory. This is why there isn't unanimity about anything in science. There is one phenomena that has got as close to unanimity within the scientific community and that is climate change, and it's widely reported that at least 97% of the leading experts agree with the outputs from the IPCC, although a significant number actually regard this to be a somewhat conservative interpretation but go along with it to get something out.
Clue: you quoting one scientist providing an alternative perspective won't do anything to undermine this.

 

[The Clamp]

Fact : 2014 was the highest level of Antarctic sea ice ever recorded. Doesn't exactly fit with a warming planet.

Source please.






who am I kidding!