Two of the world’s most prestigious science academies say man made climate change is real

[piersa]

How much of it is due to human actions and how much of it is due to natural causes?

 

[Curious Orange]

... and who is going to tell the Chinese to be a bit cleaner?

 

[beorhthelm]

... and who is going to tell the Chinese to be a bit cleaner?

thats a really really massive point. not just the chinese but the rest of the world. meanwhile, in the UK we have exceeded our reduction targets i understand.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

So will we have a nice summer this year or what?

As we're talking about trends - what's the trend here?

 

[Nibble]

How much of it is due to human actions and how much of it is due to natural causes?

Well considering it took 100's of billions of years for the planet to develop into an habitable place for life and in the 200 years since the Industrial revolution we have managed to return at least 25% of it back into an uninhabitable place I would say a fair amount is down to human activity. But what do I know, I'm just one of those mad people that looks at facts and probability.

 

[Curious Orange]

Well considering it took 100's of billions of years for the planet to develop into an habitable place for life and in the 200 years since the Industrial revolution we have managed to return at least 25% of it back into an uninhabitable place I would say a fair amount is down to human activity. But what do I know, I'm just one of those mad people that looks at facts and probability.

Which 25% is that out of interest?

 

[Nibble]

Which 25% is that out of interest?

Mainly land we have turned into mass agricultural land but logging areas, areas cleared and drilled for minerals, coral reefs destroyed never to grow again. Stretching from pole to pole. When I say uninhabitable I mean by the flora, fauna and peoples that existed there for thousands of years, not Mr and Mrs Smith from Cheam.

 

[Curious Orange]

Agriculture was cutting a swathe through countrysides long before the industrial revolution though - Britain would still be mostly forest (including the South Downs) if left to its own devices and the human species did not exist.

 

[Nibble]

Agriculture was cutting a swathe through countrysides long before the industrial revolution though - Britain would still be mostly forest (including the South Downs) if left to its own devices and the human species did not exist.

Well of course it was but on NOWHERE near the scale it has been the last 200 years with the advent of powered transport, powered farm machinery, the perceived demand for a constant supply of cattle to the fast food industry, globalisation meaning corporations can bypass land owners and deal directly with governments ignoring the residents wishes. The Right To Profit bill Bush pushed through to enable him to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska, the list of this is endless it just doesn't compare with a pre- industrial revolution world and to try and compare them is frankly ridiculous.

 

[readingstockport]

I expect a number of other academics say the opposite. Earth has been through many climate changes in the past. It is called nature at work.

Care to name them, and try to find ones that are not funded by fossil fuel companies and the koch brothers.

 

[readingstockport]

Which 25% is that out of interest?

The Niger delta. Vast swathes of polluted land in Russia. May be not 25% but definately significant.

 

[Curious Orange]

It is equally ridiculous to ignore anything that happened before the industrial revolution and to treat the human species as being somehow outside of nature.

Quite frankly there is a lot of guff in the general discussion about climate science. It seems to me that is has become more of a money grabbing exercise for various self-interest groups - governments, climate scientists, lobbyists, energy companies, journalists - than it has about how we can pragmatically become better custodians of the planet that we are living on, and there is too much emphasis on specific factors affecting the climate for a shock headline rather than taking the holistic view of how and why our planet's environment actually changes.

It concerns me, and I'd like to tell the Chinese to be cleaner... but I doubt they'd listen.

 

[readingstockport]

It is equally ridiculous to ignore anything that happened before the industrial revolution and to treat the human species as being somehow outside of nature.

Quite frankly there is a lot of guff in the general discussion about climate science. It seems to me that is has become more of a money grabbing exercise for various self-interest groups - governments, climate scientists, lobbyists, energy companies, journalists - than it has about how we can pragmatically become better custodians of the planet that we are living on, and there is too much emphasis on specific factors affecting the climate for a shock headline rather than taking the holistic view of how and why our planet's environment actually changes.

It concerns me, and I'd like to tell the Chinese to be cleaner... but I doubt they'd listen.

Oh I know, I know. I mean only 98% of climate scientists agree in AGw and only 99% of peer reviewed papers published support AGW. And they are ALL in it for the money, that's why you see so many scientists driving porsches and those poor koch brothers and oil commany executives have to make do with those non-polluting hybrid cars.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, you have got it upside down and the scientists are the ones who are doing the research and finding the facts and the koch brothers and the oil comanies are funding the few, VERY FEW, in the science community who deny AGW and it is those very few that are actually making huge sums from their viewpoints. Occams razor time methinks.

 

[BLOCK F]

Care to name them, and try to find ones that are not funded by fossil fuel companies and the koch brothers.

You could say the same thing about all the stats and statements that come from the IPCC..............Plenty of axes to grind in that lot.

 

[Curious Orange]

Oh I know, I know. I mean only 98% of climate scientists agree in AGw and only 99% of peer reviewed papers published support AGW. And they are ALL in it for the money, that's why you see so many scientists driving porsches and those poor koch brothers and oil commany executives have to make do with those non-polluting hybrid cars.

Or perhaps, just perhaps, you have got it upside down and the scientists are the ones who are doing the research and finding the facts and the koch brothers and the oil comanies are funding the few, VERY FEW, in the science community who deny AGW and it is those very few that are actually making huge sums from their viewpoints. Occams razor time methinks.

Last time I looked I hadn't stated an opinion about whether I believed there was such a thing as climate change or whether man had an effect on his environment, so please don't assume that I've got things upside down - particularly when I've accused all sides equally.

For the record, yes the evidence clearly shows that climate change does happen, and the evidence shows that human species does affect his environment.

Now, what are the practical ways of looking after the environment? And do we have any volunteers for that little chat with China?

 

[Guinness Boy]

It is equally ridiculous to ignore anything that happened before the industrial revolution and to treat the human species as being somehow outside of nature.

Quite frankly there is a lot of guff in the general discussion about climate science. It seems to me that is has become more of a money grabbing exercise for various self-interest groups - governments, climate scientists, lobbyists, energy companies, journalists - than it has about how we can pragmatically become better custodians of the planet that we are living on, and there is too much emphasis on specific factors affecting the climate for a shock headline rather than taking the holistic view of how and why our planet's environment actually changes.

It concerns me, and I'd like to tell the Chinese to be cleaner... but I doubt they'd listen.

Bang on. I'm not sceptical about the fact our climate is changing. There's very little doubt that we're involved too, especially the Chinese (now - in the 80s they were all riding bikes while we were burning coal like Topsy but then you only need to read White Swans by Jung Chang to realise how bad forced cycling and rice growing are for people).

I'm very sceptical about our ability to either prove or solve it. There are too many interest groups on both sides and the data models are so woefully poor that, on this very thread, we are now discussing 'climate change' and not 'global warming' (and there is a difference).

Basically if we're that stupid and self centered as a species to have created the problem in the first place then we're also far too stupid and self centred to solve it.

 

[beorhthelm]

Well of course it was but on NOWHERE near the scale it has been the last 200 years with the advent of powered transport, powered farm machinery, the perceived demand for a constant supply of cattle to the fast food industry, globalisation meaning corporations can bypass land owners and deal directly with governments ignoring the residents wishes. The Right To Profit bill Bush pushed through to enable him to drill for oil off the coast of Alaska, the list of this is endless it just doesn't compare with a pre- industrial revolution world and to try and compare them is frankly ridiculous.

you know what else has changed scale dramatically in the last 200 years? population. so whats the answer, telling everyone they can have anything, telling some they cant have everything while others do, or...

 

[Guinness Boy]

you know what else has changed scale dramatically in the last 200 years? population. so whats the answer, telling everyone they can have anything, telling some they cant have everything while others do, or...

No, the answer is actually simple. What you do is bring in unenforceable 20mph zones in ONE city, raise parking costs, change the binmen's rotas and introduce meat free Monday. That ought to solve it.

 

[readingstockport]

Last time I looked I hadn't stated an opinion about whether I believed there was such a thing as climate change or whether man had an effect on his environment, so please don't assume that I've got things upside down - particularly when I've accused all sides equally.

For the record, yes the evidence clearly shows that climate change does happen, and the evidence shows that human species does affect his environment.

Now, what are the practical ways of looking after the environment? And do we have any volunteers for that little chat with China?

It was more your comment that seemed to imply that what all the AGW stuff is about is to allow scientists to make money so please accept my applogies if I came over slightly arsey on that point towards you. But if you think the 'chit chats' with China are not taking place don't ever apply for a job in the diplomatic service.

 

[readingstockport]

You could say the same thing about all the stats and statements that come from the IPCC..............Plenty of axes to grind in that lot.

So thats a no then. You can't name a 'number of academics' who are not paid by either the fossil fuel companies or by people like the koch brothers who profit from fosil fuels.

Whereas of course those nasty scientists on the IPCC, you know the ones - they had their mail accounts hacked and selectively quoted from (I'm sure you read about it but probably not all the mails nor the full background story) - they m,ake up 98-99% of the scientific consesus but they of course are the ones who have sold out to BIG government in order to tax you a few pennies more.