That little old thing called climate change

[corydoras]

Well then never fear Cory is here. With all the intelligence you have on the subject who needs scientists eh? Just 1 question....have you been alive for over 200 years? Surely one man cannot know all this info and still go to work / socialise and lead a normal healthy family life!

No I am only 47. I just have one of these memories that does not forget things after I have read them. My short term memory is crap. I was wiring up a plug the other day and spent 10 minutes searching for the screwdriver that was clutched in my sweaty mitt all the time. I am divorced and my kids live in France with my ex-wife so I don't have much in the way of a family life, emails and msn through the week, half an hour on the phone on a sunday evening and the kids and I spend as much time as we can together at school hols. I don't do much telly but read loads of science. Anything to do with Cosmology, Astronomy, Climatology or Natural History will keep me occupied for hours. I am especially interested in the vision systems of insects, birds and fish. I usually read stuff like Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Scientific American, Nature and other sources where I can read the papers for myself and not some half-assed science journalists interpretation of them. So that's me in a nutshell, what floats your boat?

[John S]

I suggest that you start off by reading the IPCC report. This has the evidence for climate change all laid out nice and neat and it is not to hard to read. I don't know how many ice cores have been drilled out of the various ice feilds around the globe, but I am sure that there are hundreds of thousands of them. You say that you do not believe the IPCC report.

 

.......

 

Seriously though, if the IPCC report cannot change your mind then I really don't see what else can.

 

The IPCC are not above suspicion when it comes to feathering their own nest on the global warming issue.... Many scientists (mainly those who do not rely on aiming their researches at global warming to get their funding) are now saying that the present phase of global warming is a natural occurrence, and that in 10-20 years time temperatures will start to fall again.

[corydoras]

The IPCC are not above suspicion when it comes to feathering their own nest on the global warming issue.... Many scientists (mainly those who do not rely on aiming their researches at global warming to get their funding) are now saying that the present phase of global warming is a natural occurrence, and that in 10-20 years time temperatures will start to fall again.

Show me your evidence. Not hearsay, but evidence. And who are these 'many scientists' that you speak of? Some names would be nice. Even nicer if the scientists that you are talking about were currently involved in some kind of research and not some has been that has not published a paper in the last quarter of a century. I must admit all these conspiracy theories about scientists squawking just to get funding is starting to wear a bit thin. You'll be telling me that the CIA blew up the WTC next. Edited June 24, 2007 by corydoras

[mr motorola]

Show me your evidence. Not hearsay, but evidence. And who are these 'many scientists' that you speak of? Some names would be nice. Even nicer if the scientists that you are talking about were currently involved in some kind of research and not some has been that has not published a paper in the last quarter of a century. I must admit all these conspiracy theories about scientists squawking just to get funding is starting to wear a bit thin. You'll be telling me that the CIA blew up the WTC next.

Corydoras , go out and socialise / get yourself a drink / do something

 

Who gives a toss anyway if the world is going to end due to global warming? You and i won't see it happen , and as for our kids / grand kids seeing it well.... thats for them to decide. Why (all of a sudden) is it imperative to look after our planet? Not a jot of consideration was given to it 20 years ago , but imo the rise of the pcb has caused great uncertainty to the non deplumes of this society and not only is mankind the blame for global-warming but he has to pay taxes to cure the problem.

 

I tend to know a little about a lot and meet some very interesting people along the way and don't chose to know a lot about a little and not live life!

After all life is what we are and being on this planet for whatever reason is still to be found out , so why bother ranting about trying to save the bugger when you don't have the answer?

Life is very precious and time is even more so , only a fraction of time as we know it do we get to experience all factors of our existence and all i can say is ENJOY IT

 

A very down to earth MR MOTOROLA

[snakey1]

Yes the IPCC is totally honest and trustworthy thats why Climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to the climate scientists." i believe he is also quoted as saying "Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. we have no control over editing decisions. even less influence is granted the 2000 or so reviewers. thus to say that 800 contributing authors or 2000 reviewers reached a consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."in relation to the IPCC report.

i can also quote him in saying"I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system.well i am one scientist, and there many that simply think that is not true."

I am not getting weather and climate confused either i am simply stating that surely it should be easier to predict and effect change upon a small localised condition(such as a tornado) than it would be upon a global and hence much more complex condition such as global warming and therefore if we cannot correctly predict or change the first and simpler of the two how can we possibly hope to effect change or correctly predict the outcome of second.

I am not denying the fact that the globe appears at this time to be warming up however i do dispute the amount of effect that man has upon it and i have little faith in the amount that man can do to change it.I am also concerned about the amount of "evidence" banded about that is actually based upon facts obtained from very few working examples i.e the number of glaciers surveyed against the total number of glaciers there actually are and in the case of the ice cores how many cores have be taken and analysed so as to obtain a truely representitive sample.

The problem with theories is just that they are theories and they can always be disproven in the future like the phlogiston theory or the miasma theory of disease.

[corydoras]

Yes the IPCC is totally honest and trustworthy thats why Climatologist and IPCC contributor John Christy says of climate scientists "We have a vested interest in creating panic because money will then flow to the climate scientists." i believe he is also quoted as saying "Contributing authors essentially are asked to contribute a little text at the beginning and to review the first two drafts. we have no control over editing decisions. even less influence is granted the 2000 or so reviewers. thus to say that 800 contributing authors or 2000 reviewers reached a consensus on anything describes a situation that is not reality."in relation to the IPCC report.

i can also quote him in saying"I've often heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system.well i am one scientist, and there many that simply think that is not true."

I am not getting weather and climate confused either i am simply stating that surely it should be easier to predict and effect change upon a small localised condition(such as a tornado) than it would be upon a global and hence much more complex condition such as global warming and therefore if we cannot correctly predict or change the first and simpler of the two how can we possibly hope to effect change or correctly predict the outcome of second.

I am not denying the fact that the globe appears at this time to be warming up however i do dispute the amount of effect that man has upon it and i have little faith in the amount that man can do to change it.I am also concerned about the amount of "evidence" banded about that is actually based upon facts obtained from very few working examples i.e the number of glaciers surveyed against the total number of glaciers there actually are and in the case of the ice cores how many cores have be taken and analysed so as to obtain a truely representitive sample.

The problem with theories is just that they are theories and they can always be disproven in the future like the phlogiston theory or the miasma theory of disease.

If you can't accept that man is causing global warming then we can't have any kind of meaningful discussion on this issue. I would suggest that you go and speak to your scientist colleagues and ask them what they mean when they use the word 'theory'. A theory to a scientist is not some kind of 'guess' and it is different to what we ordinary folk mean when we use the word colloquially. A theory to a scientist is "The most logical explanation of why things work the way they do. A theory is a former hypothesis that has been tested with repeated experiments and observations and found always to work". There is no theory of Global Climate change, but there are many working hypotheses involved.

 

By the way do you know who John Cristy is? It is true that he is a climatologist, but he is also a Southern Baptist, an ex-missionary and a Fundamentalist Christian (you know these guys who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution and who think that the world is only 6,000 years old.) He and his kind could not give two hoots if the world came to an end tomorrow, as he is going to be raptured off to heaven anyway, in fact he can't wait!

Edited June 25, 2007 by corydoras

[corydoras]

Corydoras , go out and socialise / get yourself a drink / do something

 

Who gives a toss anyway if the world is going to end due to global warming? You and i won't see it happen , and as for our kids / grand kids seeing it well.... thats for them to decide. Why (all of a sudden) is it imperative to look after our planet? Not a jot of consideration was given to it 20 years ago , but imo the rise of the pcb has caused great uncertainty to the non deplumes of this society and not only is mankind the blame for global-warming but he has to pay taxes to cure the problem.

I give a toss about our planet, and always have. YOU may not have given it a thought for the last 20 years, but you are not me. The Pentagon sent a report to the Whitehouse in 2004 that said that Britain (remember that shitty little island that we live on) could have a 'siberian' climate before 2020. So you and I might see it happen and our children and grandchildren almost certainly will, and the decision will not be theirs to make. We are not talking about long timescales any more.

 

Your bit about the 'rise of the pcb' has lost me.

[John S]

Show me your evidence. Not hearsay, but evidence. And who are these 'many scientists' that you speak of? Some names would be nice. Even nicer if the scientists that you are talking about were currently involved in some kind of research and not some has been that has not published a paper in the last quarter of a century. I must admit all these conspiracy theories about scientists squawking just to get funding is starting to wear a bit thin. You'll be telling me that the CIA blew up the WTC next.

 

What would you like? names, addresses and full family tree for all scientists that do not think that global warming is related to human involvement? Or would you like the names of all the columnists in the newspapers that like to hype up a bit of information to the extreme in order to sell more copies?

 

Astro-physicists have discovered several Solar cycles apart from the 11-year sunspot cycle which we are all familiar with. There is also an 18 and an 80 year cycle (amongst others) that directly affect our weather patterns. They have taken those solar cycles and accounted for the minor ice-age during medieval times and also the mini ice-age during the Victorian age (when the Thames froze over regularly), and also the present time of global warming. If you want to know the truth, the normal condition of this planet is not to have polar ice-caps, the fact that we have them (and the fact that they have been receding just emphasises the fact that we are at the @rse-end of the last major ice-age.

 

Apart from that, the 'hockey-stick' presentation of global warming - much emphasized by the IPCC - is very simplified, it does not take into account small-scale fluctuations in temperatures - small scale as measured in decades or even hundreds of years....

 

I can remember back in the late 70's/early 80's when each winter we talked about the forthcoming Ice-Age - now we have everybody and his aunt talking about global warming as if it is written in the Bible - read between the lines. Humanity produces a small amount of carbon compared to the rest of the planet.... The plants on our planet produce more carbon than we do. The creatures in the sea produce more carbon than we do. All the other animals on our planet produce more carbon than we do - so why are we so suddenly to blame?

 

I will answer that for you - Politics. Try getting money from the Lottery Fund if you don't mention the word 'environment' in your proposal. Try getting funding for scientific research if you do not mention 'The Environment' in your scientific research....

 

Btw, in case you think I am against the environment; I used to be a member of Friends of The Earth, and regularly gave donations to Greenpeace until I realized that the first word in conservation is CON.... Now I am more realistic - we are doing damage to this planet and the other creatures that live on it, but destroying the atmosphere and causing global warming is not one of them.

 

If you insist on me giving names of the scientists that do not believe that global warming is caused by humans, I'm afraid I will first have to ask you for all the names of the scientist that believe we are - Basically, your request was just infantile

 

And no, the WTC was not blown up by the CIA, it was done by a small bunch of idiotic Muslim extremists. Boy, are they in for a surprise when they find out that there is no god (note the small 'g'....)

[John S]

A theory to a scientist is not some kind of 'guess'

 

To go off on a tangent briefly - when I was a kid, pterodactyls flapped their wings; when I was in my teens they just glided; now it is known for certain that they flew like birds - full circle. Scientists are not always right, but they usually there there eventually.

 

Back in the 70's it was only one voice that talked about global warming when everyone else was worried about the next Ice-Age, now every scientist that wants funding talks about it, it is only a small minority that dare to speak otherwise. Who is right? Those wanting funding or those willing to go against the norm?

 

I don't want to disappoint you, but we are still overdue for a transition into the next major ice-age - that's going to bugger up the global warming protagonists

[corydoras]

What would you like? names, addresses and full family tree for all scientists that do not think that global warming is related to human involvement?

The name of just one would be nice.

 

Astro-physicists have discovered several Solar cycles apart from the 11-year sunspot cycle which we are all familiar with. There is also an 18 and an 80 year cycle (amongst others) that directly affect our weather patterns. They have taken those solar cycles and accounted for the minor ice-age during medieval times and also the mini ice-age during the Victorian age (when the Thames froze over regularly), and also the present time of global warming.

I know about this so do the 2,500 scientists who signed the IPCC

 

There are two conditions that cause polar ice caps. Having continents all pushed up in a ring around a polar ocean or when a continent itself is over a pole. At the moment we have one of each.

 

Apart from that, the 'hockey-stick' presentation of global warming - much emphasized by the IPCC - is very simplified, it does not take into account small-scale fluctuations in temperatures - small scale as measured in decades or even hundreds of years....

 

I can remember back in the late 70's/early 80's when each winter we talked about the forthcoming Ice-Age - now we have everybody and his aunt talking about global warming as if it is written in the Bible - read between the lines.

 

I'm to thick, you'll need to spell it out for me.

 

Humanity produces a small amount of carbon compared to the rest of the planet.

Evidence? What is 'the rest of the planet?'

 

The plants on our planet produce more carbon than we do. The creatures in the sea produce more carbon than we do. All the other animals on our planet produce more carbon than we do.

This is just a list of falsehoods unless you can show me the research.

 

Politics. The only real politics that come into this are the wimpy 'world leaders' who do not have the bottle to stand up and tell it like it is.

 

If you insist on me giving names of the scientists that do not believe that global warming is caused by humans, I'm afraid I will first have to ask you for all the names of the scientist that believe we are - Basically, your request was just infantile

 

 

There were 2,500 of them that signed the 2007 IPCC report (nary a hockey stick in sight)

 

...(note the small 'g'....)

 

That's OK mate, there is no evidence that he exists either.