*** The Official Climate Change Debate ***

[Papa Lazarou]

So, as this arose on the Snow Tomorrow thread, and to avoid that one becoming flooded with Climate Change debate, here we are.

So, where do YOU stand on this? (Poll to follow)

Do you beleive that human activity is altering the chemistry of our atmosphere to such an extent that it is changing the temperature of the planet, and therefore altering climate / weather / sea levels?

Or do you feel it's a conspiracy to force us to give up basic freedom's?

so, here we go.

The case in supporting climate change (AGW) being real:

NASA:
http://climate.nasa.gov/news/506/

Denier Debunking site:
https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Youtube

University of California:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Q271UaNPo

National Acadamy of Sciences / Royal Academy:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0zONEy_vo


The case against:

Climate Skeptic Web Site:
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/

slightly ranty:
http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/arguments-against-global-warming.htm

Youtube

The Sceptics Case:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc

Climate Gate!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2J8zEJHIg8



On the Fence:

http://climatechange.procon.org/

 

[TSB]

There is no debate.

It's The Educated vs Americans

 

[Guinness Boy]

Here's an opinion - and it is only that - without clicking all those links. It involves the links though. They're part of the thing.

I'm pretty sure that the climate is changing and that we're causing it. Rising sea temperatures, melting ice, holes in the ozone etc. I can also tell the difference between weather and climate so that a freezing cold winter for us doesn't mean that it's stopped, just as a hot dry summer like last year doesn't mean the pace has accelerated. But can we really tell by how much it is changing and what the long term effects are. That seems to me to be supposition and data modelling, nothing more. Hence the number of links.

You have two vested interest groups on either side. Big business has found libertarian scholars prepared to back them and Greenpeace et all spend a huge amount of time attacking them. Climate change affirmation and climate change denial have become mini industries in themselves, taking up (ironically) a huge amount of resource. Winning the intellectual argument seems to be more important than getting something done.

So, to answer the questions, yes I think we are altering our planet's climate, no I don't think it's a conspiriacy but I do feel it is in the Green Lobby's interest to focus on the intellectual argument rather than to get something done about it.

 

[symyjym]

Humans directly affect everything on this planet from deforestation, use of carbon fuel to building damns. We have to learn how to control our climate even if global warming is a natural occurrence, which it is also.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It's a good idea to reduce pollution as much as possible for public health reasons alone. That said we should be careful of the many vested interests who can and do use genuine concerns about the environment to smuggle in other agendas. As for climate change sticking with the scientific consensus is the only rational way to proceed.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

What no'one can tell me is why all the sea 'rise' predictions of 14 feet/20 getting by 2100 make no account for the Dead Sea/Death Valley areas Below sea level that will 'fill up' thereby halting the rise maybe at 2/4/6 feet, so no need to worry

 

[KZNSeagull]

Well something is happening to the climate, whether man made or not, but it cannot be a coincidence that it is happening at a time when there are more humans on the planet at any time than in the past pumping pollutants into the air for years on end. Who or what is to blame is not the important bit though, doing something about the effects of the changing climate is.

 

[5ways]

Climate change is happening and it is caused by human activity. Anything less is simply denial of scientific evidence and scientific consensus.

 

[Bold Seagull]

There is no debate.

It's The Educated vs Americans (and the Telegraph...)

 

[beorhthelm]

there are problems in the data, at least enough that it should be challenged, and the theory as stated is/was flawed. instead of recasting a new hypothesis, the goal posts and data have been adjusted to fit. that should leave anyone skeptical of the accuracy of all the conclusions. or maybe, we've done enough to arrest the problem already?

and another thing, a side issue, is that the focus on CO2 has lead to a great deal of misguided policies. mandating carbon neutral fuel, so clearing rain forest for growing fuel; subsidising renewable fuels with questionable net pollution outcomes and increasing basic energy costs; most recent to come to light, the advocacy of diesel to reduce CO2 at the expense of other pollutants.

 

[Igzilla]

I'm currently reading "This Changes Everything", by Naomi Klein. Not to everyones taste, and firmly on the side of "small" Green (as opposed to the "Big Green" industry). Worth a read, even if you don't agree - always good having your assumptions challenged once in a while. Puts into real perspective the ecological catastrophe that is fracking.

 

[cirC]

I'll bite.
10000 years ago most of Britain north of the Thames was buried under ice.It all melted ( except over the very far north near the poles ) and given that humans were not numerous just what caused the ice retreat?
The earths orbit and the axis tilt, vary over time and the sun also has more or less activity from time to time.See and google .. Milankovitch .. We undoubtedly cause pollution but I suspect less to the atmosphere than the land.
The good news is that if the global warming folks are correct than it may postpone the next ice age which is overdue!

see https://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age-intermediate.htm

 

[Bold Seagull]

there are problems in the data, at least enough that it should be challenged, and the theory as stated is/was flawed. instead of recasting a new hypothesis, the goal posts and data have been adjusted to fit. that should leave anyone skeptical of the accuracy of all the conclusions. or maybe, we've done enough to arrest the problem already?

The problem isn't the data, it is the predictive models and how these are interrupted by the main stream media. Most in the science community accept the predicative nature of the models, however the media use any deviation from current measurements compared to previous forecasts of models as some kind of hole in the data.

 

[Guinness Boy]

there are problems in the data, at least enough that it should be challenged, and the theory as stated is/was flawed. instead of recasting a new hypothesis, the goal posts and data have been adjusted to fit. that should leave anyone skeptical of the accuracy of all the conclusions. or maybe, we've done enough to arrest the problem already?

and another thing, a side issue, is that the focus on CO2 has lead to a great deal of misguided policies. mandating carbon neutral fuel, so clearing rain forest for growing fuel; subsidising renewable fuels with questionable net pollution outcomes and increasing basic energy costs; most recent to come to light, the advocacy of diesel to reduce CO2 at the expense of other pollutants.

We're human. We're flawed. All of us. Exactly why I believe that we ARE affecting the climate but also why I believe we're not very good at saying with certainty by how much or what to do about it. The second we address the latter two points our judgement becomes clouded by our personal politics and interests.

 

[larus]

If you're genuinely interested in the sceptical view point (by that, I mean open to other opinions and willing to listen to reasoned arguments), then i would suggest looking at http://wattsupwiththat.com.

For example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/theres-life-in-the-old-pause-yet/ .

There are many good articles on there covering topics from:
Polar Bears and the lies about their number/habitat risk.
Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice.
Solar Activity.
El Nino.
Comparing the models and the actuals.
The manipulation/adjustments of the data (I know what a lot of you will think - conspiracy theories), but why did UEA try to "Hide the pause".
The methods of determining temperature from around the globe - laughable.
The fact the the oceans aren't warming up (and how many buoys there are in relation to the size of the oceans). Something like taking 1 reading a year from Lake Superior and this tells you all you need to know about the temperature changes of the lake.
The natural CO2 cycle (how much is emitted/absorbed naturally).
Ocean levels have been rising for 10's of thousands of years. They still are rising as we are in an inter-glacial period.
CO2 has at time been as high as 7000 parts per million, and guess what, the planet didn't burn up.
Volcanic activity under the western peninsular of the Antarctic impacting local temperatures/ice patterns there.
Why do ALL of the models fail when compared to reality? They are all projecting temperatures to be above what they are now. If your answer is reduced solar activity, then you have to accept that increased solar activity at the end of the last century was at least partly to blame for the slight warming. If our response is based on the models, but the models are failures, at what point should the models be discarded. Basic scientific scrutiny. Make predictions, test/measure and if constantly wrong, then the prediction must be wrong.
etc.,etc.

Science does not have all of the answers. It was only in the 1970's science was saying we're going back to an ice-age.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't improve how we treat the planet in terms of pollution/animal welfare/pesticides/ etc., but I am just not convinced that the change in CO2 from 0.0287% to 0.0400% of the atmosphere is going to lead to catastrophic climate change.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It is far too early to tell. The icecaps have melted in the past without our help. So it goes. Regardless, it makes sense to reduce badness, which includes greenhous gases, within reason. Paying 5 p for a supermarket bag, however, just punishes the poor. And on November 4th, I will Build A Bonfire.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

If you're genuinely interested in the sceptical view point (by that, I mean open to other opinions and willing to listen to reasoned arguments), then i would suggest looking at http://wattsupwiththat.com.

For example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/theres-life-in-the-old-pause-yet/ .

There are many good articles on there covering topics from:
Polar Bears and the lies about their number/habitat risk.
Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice.
Solar Activity.
El Nino.
Comparing the models and the actuals.
The manipulation/adjustments of the data (I know what a lot of you will think - conspiracy theories), but why did UEA try to "Hide the pause".
The methods of determining temperature from around the globe - laughable.
The fact the the oceans aren't warming up (and how many buoys there are in relation to the size of the oceans). Something like taking 1 reading a year from Lake Superior and this tells you all you need to know about the temperature changes of the lake.
The natural CO2 cycle (how much is emitted/absorbed naturally).
Ocean levels have been rising for 10's of thousands of years. They still are rising as we are in an inter-glacial period.
CO2 has at time been as high as 7000 parts per million, and guess what, the planet didn't burn up.
Volcanic activity under the western peninsular of the Antarctic impacting local temperatures/ice patterns there.
Why do ALL of the models fail when compared to reality? They are all projecting temperatures to be above what they are now. If your answer is reduced solar activity, then you have to accept that increased solar activity at the end of the last century was at least partly to blame for the slight warming. If our response is based on the models, but the models are failures, at what point should the models be discarded. Basic scientific scrutiny. Make predictions, test/measure and if constantly wrong, then the prediction must be wrong.
etc.,etc.

Science does not have all of the answers. It was only in the 1970's science was saying we're going back to an ice-age.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't improve how we treat the planet in terms of pollution/animal welfare/pesticides/ etc., but I am just not convinced that the change in CO2 from 0.0287% to 0.0400% of the atmosphere is going to lead to catastrophic climate change.

Excellent post - there is a lot to discuss on this, and if we're all adopting a scientific approach, we're all open to persuasion should compelling evidence be presented.

 

[larus]

Excellent post - there is a lot to discuss on this, and if we're all adopting a scientific approach, we're all open to persuasion should compelling evidence be presented.

Thanks Papa. I think you said that, in the past you were sceptical but now lean towards CO2 an impacting the climate. Strange thing is, I am probably the mirror image of you, in that I was a CO2 blamer, but have become a lot more sceptical. I don't profess to understand all of the comments/scientific theory behind the articles on WUWT, but there's a healthy debate on there and some very smart posters who have convinced me that the science is far from settled.

I would say the next 40-5 years could be very interesting in the debate, as, if there is a slight cooling caused by the diminished activity from the sun, coinciding with a La Nina, the pause would be extended but quite a bit.

One thing that is not understood is that there are for more deaths associated with extreme cold rather than extreme heat. I'm not talking of people get trapped in the desert, but by extreme winters vs heatwaves. Life flourishes in the heat but not so in the cold. Also, with warmer global temperatures, you get more evaporation and hence more rainfall/more growth in nature. Colder temperatures, less rain and more desertification.

Do I claim to have the answers? No, not by a long way. My concern is that too many are influenced by the MSM and their need for headlines (warmest December on record/10 years etc) and aren't making an informed decision.

 

[Bold Seagull]

a website called watts(clever pun..)upwiththat.com.....you've got me convinced....

 

[Seagull27]

If you're genuinely interested in the sceptical view point (by that, I mean open to other opinions and willing to listen to reasoned arguments), then i would suggest looking at http://wattsupwiththat.com.

For example: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/08/theres-life-in-the-old-pause-yet/ .

There are many good articles on there covering topics from:
Polar Bears and the lies about their number/habitat risk.
Arctic/Antarctic Sea Ice.
Solar Activity.
El Nino.
Comparing the models and the actuals.
The manipulation/adjustments of the data (I know what a lot of you will think - conspiracy theories), but why did UEA try to "Hide the pause".
The methods of determining temperature from around the globe - laughable.
The fact the the oceans aren't warming up (and how many buoys there are in relation to the size of the oceans). Something like taking 1 reading a year from Lake Superior and this tells you all you need to know about the temperature changes of the lake.
The natural CO2 cycle (how much is emitted/absorbed naturally).
Ocean levels have been rising for 10's of thousands of years. They still are rising as we are in an inter-glacial period.
CO2 has at time been as high as 7000 parts per million, and guess what, the planet didn't burn up.
Volcanic activity under the western peninsular of the Antarctic impacting local temperatures/ice patterns there.
Why do ALL of the models fail when compared to reality? They are all projecting temperatures to be above what they are now. If your answer is reduced solar activity, then you have to accept that increased solar activity at the end of the last century was at least partly to blame for the slight warming. If our response is based on the models, but the models are failures, at what point should the models be discarded. Basic scientific scrutiny. Make predictions, test/measure and if constantly wrong, then the prediction must be wrong.
etc.,etc.

Science does not have all of the answers. It was only in the 1970's science was saying we're going back to an ice-age.

Now, I'm not saying we shouldn't improve how we treat the planet in terms of pollution/animal welfare/pesticides/ etc., but I am just not convinced that the change in CO2 from 0.0287% to 0.0400% of the atmosphere is going to lead to catastrophic climate change.

You make some interesting points, but then again you make this insinuation that just because there is a tiny amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and it has increased by an even smaller amount, makes it automatically insignificant. Whether CO2 is having an effect or not, this assumption, purely based on concentrations, is unscientific. Most chemical processes don't occur linearly and an increase in just a tiny amount of one chemical can have huge effects on a system.