I have said it is not the full story and given my reasons for that opinion, non of which are on that list.
It's about a 2 minute video. How much detail were you expecting? You've got to make your mind up, @johnv. Either climate change is super important, or it really doesn't matter. Which is it? If you think it is super important, don't you think we ought to be doing something about it?
You are still recoverable, in theory. You might see the light one day. Indeed, I seem to notice a softening of opinion compared to previous threads. As for @Lightning_650, I despair. At least I would, if I thought it really made that much difference whether he thinks climate change is important or not. Sadly, there are many millions still with him, so one more or less hardly seems to matter. This is the difference between me and the Spanish Inquisition: I'm not really trying to save anyone's soul, just enjoying a constructive debate.
What I expect is accurate information. He clearly stated that whilst the climate did change naturally in the past that it is not changing naturally now. That statement is clearly wrong, would you not agree ? I think climate change will present us with many difficult challenges but they will not be the only ones and they will not be the greatest ones.
No I wouldn't. The entire thesis of the video is that the climate is changing "unnaturally" now. It has our fingerprints all over it. What is "clearly wrong" about that? What? What is so clear to you that I cannot see?
Are at least some of the natural processes that changed the climate in the past still active today or is manmade CO2 the only factor in climate change ? If we both pissed into a pot would the level in the pot go up because you are pissing or because I am pissing ?
Yes, but they have discounted those changes from the observations that have been made. If you are going to have to observe phenomena, you have to eliminate the background, to form any valid conclusions. You've got a science degree, you already know this.
Are you suggesting that all of the change we are seeing today is as a direct result of man made CO2 and that the background, or natural, rate of change is zero ? I find that impossible to believe. It goes against everything we know about the geological record. Stasis is just not credible, even on a human timescale. What we do know is that change is normal and sometimes very rapid. I think you give too much credit to the warmists.
Much of it has to do with taxing the masses rather than saving the planet. FWIW i think everyone should be allowed a quota of fossil fuelled travel every year. If they dont use it all they can sell it on to those who do. That way its fair for all and would effectively limit the pollution caused to a known level.
You're almost there @johnv, and I think I can see what's troubling you about it. There are many factors influencing climate. Some of those natural (non-manmade) factors are actually depressing temperature as well as increasing it and all do so in vastly different amounts and at different rates. There are other details too that point to anthropic causes being dominant. No one has suggested, though it seems you think I have, that anthropogenic effects are the only cause of change (a strawman) but the science points to us being the current dominant driver of warming. Pointing out that natural causes are also involved, as they always have been and always will, does not discount the observation that the dominant cause now is us. (Eg data exists for climate variation from before humans had an effect so the fingerprint of different natural causes can to a large degree be recognised).
Please don't hate me, just do the same as I did and sell up and move in this direction. Anyone can do it, it takes a bit of courage, but is easy to do. Had you done it before now then you could have joined the wife and I on the Ducatis today when we went out for lunch in the sunshine.
"Dominant cause" is a tricky concept. Critical contributory element might be a better term. Consider: Natural GW might mean that in 200 years, we will be in trouble. AGW means that the timetable is being moved up, say 50 years. Would you like 200 years in which to prepare for the end, or 50 years?
Agreed. Using natural language to describe things like this inevitably results in confusion. I'm trying to keep the language as simple as possible (lets not even get into the philosophical difficulties with the meaning of causation). Yes, its really about rates of change.
Wind turbines are a hot topic locally and several proposed sites have been rejected but others are in the planning stage.
so is this thread a dry run for when you take on the planning comity? don't be mean, go green. :smileys:
