GLOBAL WARMING: the truth! (1 Viewer)

[rozinante]

Perhaps you might alleviate your headaches if you approached the people you are trying to persuade, with a little more humility & a little less arrogance.

You do well to apologise for not reading this thread, given your sweeping & prejudiced assumptions about many of it's contributors.
If by "global warming deniers" you mean people who do not believe that global average temperatures are trending up, then I must say I don't recall many-if any of them here.Indeed I doubt whether there are a significant number of people in that category.

Colin

Hello Colin

I did hope that my pointing out that I had not read all the thread and then directly relating my opinions to previous fruitless discussions on the topic would sufficiently indicate that my comments where not directed at contributors to this thread. I was merely expressing my opinion and experience on the way the subject is increasingly being dealt with.

I can see that my clumsy and somewhat pompous attempts at clarity could be mistaken for arrogance though. I assure you then that in a subject as complex as this, I am well aware of and make no attempt to hide my almost total ignorance. I don't have the skills, knowledge or even the time to digest one tenth of the data and information that would be required to make a worthwhile judgment of my own on global warming and its causes.

In such cases I normally turn to the experts. If it was medical, I would consult the medical profession. In this case though I would consider the IPCC with 2,500 scientists from 30 nations committing 6yrs of study to be best placed to offer advice.

I am sorry that I can't provide any clarification to the demanding list of things you wish to understand before you can reach your own conclusion. I can only suggest you consult the IPCC as I am not aware of any more credible source. In any case I certainly wouldn't recommend Martin Durkin! I just hope there is enough time for you to take it all in, I am glad I don’t need to, I am far to old.

To clarify which "global warming deniers" I was referring to earlier (as you now hopefully understand it was no one on here) it was to 5 highly educated adults I was engaged in conversation with about the program which is the subject of this thread. Like the opening post in this thread they appeared to be overwhelmed in their enthusiasm for this apparent justification of the opinion they so desperatly wish to cling to. Two of them even suggesting that there was a BBC plot to support the government in spreading the “myth” to enable tyrannical lefty legislation to be introduced. After that, when seeing the opening posts here I felt inclined to express my own opinion as others have. I don’t see were I tell anyone else what to do though, can you point that bit out please?

Only opinions Collin, please don't take them personaly and I do realise they are not worth any more (or less) than anyone elses even if it doesn't sound like it sometimes.

Steven

 

[Edward woodwood]

things are changing

two years ago this debate would have been more vitreolic an not reached the conclusion it has

the scientists are winning over the public to the truth (as we know it) of global warming, despite the vain attempts of discreited or publicity-crazed individuals on the fringes of the academic world.

and a good thing it is too. At least no one on Bird Forum appears to deny it's even happening any more. Yes the man on the street or in the pub will still have his opinion an throw it about when he thinks it makes him appear 'clever'. Luckily we see through these noise and heat spouters nowadays.

 

[scampo]

...This must be a campaign of gentle persuasion.

Do you really think that's the way? If governments took a genuine lead people would follow. The way they are pussy-footing about is what leaves people so sceptical. If the issue is as big and important as it certainly seems to be then action is needed not empty words.

 

[Tyke]

Only opinions Collin, please don't take them personaly and I do realise they are not worth any more (or less) than anyone elses even if it doesn't sound like it sometimes.

Steven

Sure thing Steven.
We all struggle in our own way with this one!
Colin

 

[Upland Birder]

Perhaps you might alleviate your headaches if you approached the people you are trying to persuade, with a little more humility & a little less arrogance.

You do well to apologise for not reading this thread, given your sweeping & prejudiced assumptions about many of it's contributors.
If by "global warming deniers" you mean people who do not believe that global average temperatures are trending up, then I must say I don't recall many-if any of them here.Indeed I doubt whether there are a significant number of people in that category.

If, however "global warming deniers" includes people who wish to understand more about -for example :-
*The exact contribution of atmospheric CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
*The exact contribution of human activity to total atmospheric CO2.
*The exact contribution of non-human factors to temperature change.
* The veracity of climate change models, and the % probability of the outcomes they predict.
*The real chances-or otherwise of affecting those predictions by our future actions.
*The best actions for us to take in order to further mitigation of GW and/or adaptation to it.
....then yes there are a number here(including me)-and no they are most certainly interested in scientific evidence.
But speaking for myself I just want the references please. "Discussion" is most welcome-being told what to believe & what not to believe is not welcome.

Colin

Hi Colin,

I could not agree with you more. Everyone should be able to to have a debate, discussion and to comment on this thread and at the same time show respect for one another. Its nice to see a little humour as well here and there :-O

Anyway its 34 years since I was introduced to the album and a few billion years before the sun is due to expand to a red star. I'm going to listen to Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side Of The Moon'. B

I wonder how long the human species has got before it becomes extinct. What will be our evolutionary map for the future. Now there's a thought!

Dean

 

[turkish van]

I wonder how long the human species has got before it becomes extinct. What will be our evolutionary map for the future. Now there's a thought!

That probably much depends on who gets their way - carbonites or carbonists

 

[Edward woodwood]

I wonder how long the human species has got before it becomes extinct. What will be our evolutionary map for the future. Now there's a thought!

Dean

mmm, dunno Dean but Pink Floyd were certainly an evolutionary dead end, and prog rock went the same way, superceded by the lean and mean young punks (although i understand a few people on the fringe still hold on to the notion that the Floyd still have something to say - bit like the GW debate!). Funny how things keep getting better...

Tim, who certainly doesn't need a fourth chord. 8-P

Mr B, fancy a reply?

Ciao B B B

 

[Jos Stratford]

If the issue is as big and important as it certainly seems to be then action is needed not empty words.

What action would you suggest? Embracing the EU target of 20% renewables? Cutting flights? Shooting 50% of the population? All achieve carbon reductions, all have other negative side-effects.

Renewables seems to be the in vogue solution ...but if that means countless thousands of windfarms everywhere, birds sliced and diced on a near commercial basis, then give me the 2 degree rise thanks. Reducing flights? The easy option, tax them and get some money out of it at the same time, if we successfully reduce flying significantly, we can just ignore the minor issue that it screws the countless ecosystems, reserves and species worldwide that owe their survival to tourist income. And what for, flying accounts for a mere 5% of carbon output. Even if every last one of us sticks to terra firma, no big difference.

How come these never get a mention? By some figures, food production accounts for 20-25% of emissions - and 30-40% of that food never gets eaten, either chucked out during the production process, by the supermarkets or by you and I ...what a waste, 10 % of the carbon output for absolutely nothing. Then there is housing - a further 25% of emissions?! What temperature was your room during winter? A comfortable 20 degrees, shame on you, buy a jumper. Got a TV, a video, a stereo, a computer, an electric toaster, boy are you a waster!

Still, let's all sit and be comfortable, I mean we all know that by limiting flights, the world will be okay, won't it? A barren, half empty of wildlife world, but a nice cool one, so all's okay there.

 

[Edward woodwood]

How come these never get a mention? By some figures, food production accounts for 20-25% of emissions - and 30-40% of that food never gets eaten, either chucked out during the production process, by the supermarkets or by you and I ...what a waste, 10 % of the carbon output for absolutely nothing. Then there is housing - a further 25% of emissions?! What temperature was your room during winter? A comfortable 20 degrees, shame on you, buy a jumper. Got a TV, a video, a stereo, a computer, an electric toaster, boy are you a waster!
.

Yes, very good points. I am warming (ho ho ho) to your position Jos.

Ever since getting back from the Steller's I've never felt cold in England. Heating's off, T-shirt's on and we have the dog to keep feet warm at night.
makes me feel better about the odd flight too... it's like bloody summer here already so i guess we save on buring the fuel as well... I wonder if not going to Mr Tescos at all, growing more of my own food etc would have a worthwhile impact?

 

[DKR]

....while Rome burns

When it comes to climate change I'll believe the majority of climate scientists. Not dodgy documentary makers or mavericks.

 

[Vectis Birder]

Whatever happens in the short term, we are going to run out of fossil fuels in the next 5 decades or so. Renewables and alternative fuels have to be put into place now, or we face a bleak future whether from global warming or from going back to pre-industrial ways of living.

I agree with Jos, aviation is a convenient scapegoat, but what about everything else? Food production? Power generation? Industry? Shipping? Road transport and so on?

 

[turkish van]

I am warming (ho ho ho) to your position Jos.

Rather annoyingly, same here. But he can still give a bit on the anti-carbonite view, I reckon

 

[rozinante]

superceded by the lean and mean young punks

Yes Tim too true, whatever hapened to them anyway?

"Mankind's existence on earth has long since passed the point of sustainability."

Realy? Definatly? Another one I would need to take advice on I think Collin, now where to go for it....

 

[Tyke]

things are changing

.

Yes they are Tim.
But so is the "science"
In 1971 Global Ecology forecast the "continued rapid cooling of the earth." The New York Times reported in 1975 that "many signs" suggest that the "earth may be headed for another ice age," and Science magazine that this cooling could be the beginning of "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age." It seemed sensible because, as NASA data show, there was indeed a 30-year, 0.2-degree Celsius cooling trend from 1940 to 1970.

A degree of caution when it comes to "the science" is not unjustified.


Colin

 

[Upland Birder]

mmm, dunno Dean but Pink Floyd were certainly an evolutionary dead end, and prog rock went the same way, superceded by the lean and mean young punks (although i understand a few people on the fringe still hold on to the notion that the Floyd still have something to say - bit like the GW debate!). Funny how things keep getting better...

Tim, who certainly doesn't need a fourth chord. 8-P

Mr B, fancy a reply?

Ciao B B B

Careful Tim,

You might start another debate. There have been many evolutionary dead ends in the world of music including punk.

I think the Floyd and many other bands/artists once had something to say but those days are gone. I only ever liked two Floyd albums one you already know about the other being 'Meddle'.

Anyway Tim it's probably time for us all to consider how to get back to some basic simplicity in life and to release ourselves from the shackles of materialism, clutter and current ideas and influences from the Governments 'Silly Ideas department'.

I have now been stripped of my mobile phone. This is one step towards simplifying my life. Ralph, my puppy Labrador recently managed to get hold of it when I was not looking and chewed one half of it. It no longer works.

Its amazing how great life is without a mobile!!

Cheers

Dean

 

[Tyke]

Realy? Definatly? Another one I would need to take advice on I think Collin, now where to go for it....

You could start with Jared Diamonds "Collapse"

Any set of stats on population & percapita consumption growth in India & China-eg-in a few decades may need 125% of total global oil output.

Do some research on the trade deals China is doing in Africa, Asia, S. America-they are stitching it all up.

Have a look at projected trends in fresh water resources.

Or alternatively persuade me that the human population is sustainable!

Colin

 

[Jos Stratford]

I have now been stripped of my mobile phone. This is one step towards simplifying my life. Ralph, my puppy Labrador recently managed to get hold of it when I was not looking and chewed one half of it. It no longer works.

My labrador has chomped three now, including one brand new!

 

[scampo]

mmm, dunno Dean but Pink Floyd were certainly an evolutionary dead end, and prog rock went the same way, superceded by the lean and mean young punks (although i understand a few people on the fringe still hold on to the notion that the Floyd still have something to say - bit like the GW debate!). Funny how things keep getting better...

Tim, who certainly doesn't need a fourth chord.

Mr B, fancy a reply?

Ciao

Maybe Floyd were onto something...

Set the controls for the heart of the sun?

And call me a sentimentalist but, ah - give me the heady ideals of prog rock with its hippy heritage rather than the cynical nihilism of punk anyday.

 

[Helenelizabeth2]

And call me a sentimentalist but, ah - give me the heady ideals of prog rock with its hippy heritage rather than the cynical nihilism of punk anyday.

Ah yes, that would be the 'heady ideals' of this, for example:

I awoke this morning
Love laid me down by the river
Drifting I turned on up stream
Bound for my forgiver
In the giving of my eyes to see your face
Sound did silence me
Leaving no trace
I beg to leave, to hear your wonderous stories
Beg to hear your wonderous stories 'LA AHA'

Compared with the 'cynical nihilism' of this:

Dress back jump back this is a bluebeat attack
'Cos it won't get you anywhere
Fooling with your guns
The British Army is waiting out there
An' it weighs fifteen hundred tons

White youth, black youth
Better find another solution
Why not phone up Robin Hood
And ask him for some wealth redistribution

I don't think either of them are terribly articulate examples (sorry, Tim) but I know which one I think has some ideals in it.

 

[Moonshake]

Jos wrote:

Reducing flights? The easy option, tax them and get some money out of it at the same time, if we successfully reduce flying significantly, we can just ignore the minor issue that it screws the countless ecosystems, reserves and species worldwide that owe their survival to tourist income. And what for, flying accounts for a mere 5% of carbon output. Even if every last one of us sticks to terra firma, no big difference.

Taking issue with the last statement, as with much of the science, it's just not as simple and as 'common sense' as that. In addition to CO2, aircraft emit a bunch of other substances that we could loosely term 'pollutants'. Through various mechanisms some of these act to reduce the impact of flying on global warming, whereas some (specifically nitrogen oxides) act to increase the warming effect. As an example of the former, contrails reflect sunlight back into space and they therefore limit solar warming, and this mitigates some of the climate impact of flying (this obviously only has an effect during the daytime though - if you have to fly, don't fly at night!)

On the downside, one major problem is because these emissions are released at high altitude, they can lead to an increase of ozone in the troposphere. At tropospheric altitudes, ozone functions as a powerful greenhouse gas. The IPCC has therefore estimated the effect of flying on global warming to be about 3 or 4 times that caused by just its CO2 emissions.

Using those figures, your 'only 5%' becomes a (relatively) much larger fraction of the impact of transport on climate.

Loads more stuff on it from the IPCC here:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/aviation/index.htm