Well, we CAN change the Earth, our relative individual size is not a limitation. It has been changed drastically in its history by nothing more than single cell organisms (you can thank them for the oxygen we currently enjoy breathing). But if your sentiment is that the Earth gives no fucks about US, then I agree. The whole point is human survival, not 'saving the earth'. In the hypothetical case that we wipe out 99% of life on the planet through some human dumbfuckery the Earth will just shrug its shoulders, in a few hundreds of millions of years it might be a paradise again.
Are you confusing 'no evidence' with 'no certainty'? Because there is ample evidence, and for us everyday folk there is meta-evidence in the form of the overwhelming scientific consensus.
Err, that was the first graph I posted. So again, why would any model exclude CO2 and why might anyone think that a model without CO2 would be more accurate ? Are you trying to lay bear traps with a big sign saying BEAR TRAP pointing to it ?
For the sake of anyone on the fence reading this thread, I would hate you to think this 'debate' is equal sided. It really isn't. If there was any credence to the argument that human society is unlikely to be the cause of climate change or even that it is not a reasonable hypothesis we would see that in the distribution of published scientific papers. Even accounting for publication and other biases this is the state of play. Choose a side. I choose science. Meta analysis of climate science consensus: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024/pdf 5. Conclusion The public perception of a scientific consensus on AGW is a necessary element in public support for climate policy (Ding et al 2011). However, there is a significant gap between public perception and reality, with 57% of the US public either disagreeing or unaware that scientists overwhelmingly agree that the earth is warming due to human activity (Pew 2012). Contributing to this ‘consensus gap’ are campaigns designed to confuse the public about the level of agreement among climate scientists. In 1991, Western Fuels Association conducted a $510000 campaign whose primary goal was to ‘reposition global warming as theory (not fact)’. A key strategy involved constructing the impression of active scientific debate using dissenting scientists as spokesmen (Oreskes 2010). The situation is exacerbated by media treatment of the climate issue, where the normative practice of providing opposing sides with equal attention has allowed a vocal minority to have their views amplified (Boykoff and Boykoff 2004). While there are indications that the situation has improved in the UK and USA prestige press (Boykoff 2007), the UK tabloid press showed no indication of improvement from 2000 to 2006 (Boykoff and Mansfield 2008). The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is ‘. . . on the point of collapse’ (Oddie 2012) while ‘. . . the number of scientific “heretics” is growing with each passing year’ (Alle`gre et al 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
Can you believe that the IPCC, who remember does no original research and selects other people's research for inclusion in their reports, could over egg the custard for political and possibly financial gain ? Are you suggesting that one side of the argument is squeaky clean and the other is entirely funded by big business ? [Remember the dodgy dossier, people believe what they want to believe] My position is that climate change is real, it has gone on naturally since the earth was formed, we are contributing to that change but by exactly how much is open to debate, my own view is that it is probably a lot less than the "official" figures suggest for a variety of reasons, there are vested interests on both sides of the argument and there is a great deal of misinformation regarding the science, politics and economics of climate change, the science is not not settled and computer models are not the real world, we should reduce carbon emissions because hydrocarbon is a finite and very valuable resource which not only provides power but feeds industry, the developing world will continue to increase it's carbon emissions because they have no real alternatives, we should research and invest in alternatives but they are more likely to add costs than reduce costs, certainly in the short to medium term.
Was the climate changing before mankind arrived on planet Earth ? Would the climate be changing today if mankind was not on this Earth ? Has the temperature and CO2 levels been significantly higher than they are today before mankind arrived on this planet ? Human society contributes to climate change, it does not cause climate change.
Semantics and fatalism, a potent mixture, John People have been dying long before there was penicillin, they continue to die after its discovery ... is there any point to penicillin?
Climate Change, unless you are employed in it, get grants from it, investments in it, no one gives a shit.
John,some debates are not worth your efforts man. Religion,and a fervent belief in the invisible and the unproveable, affect some people to such an extent that they are completely blind to the obvious. Best thing is to let them be led by the nose by the unscrupulous: remember if it wasn't for the gullible,there would be no buyers for all the Chinese tat on ebay. "there are none so blind as those who will not see",as they say. And when all someone can put forward as "evidence" to back up their belief is a graph showing,"it must be true,lots of people say it is",it's time to use the ignore button.
The graph is not science. The PDF I linked to was science. It was a meta analysis of climate science consensus. The graph image summarises and presents the conclusion in a bite-sized format for those too lazy to read the pdf. That you cannot tell the difference seems to sum up your problem understanding this issue.
The reason why 97% of all scientists agree with manmade climate change is because it is true, however man's involvement in Climate Change is not simply a yes or no question. The climate would be changing today even if mankind had never made it out of Africa hundreds of thousands of years ago. @gliddofglood you stated The IPCC does meta analysis, but the people on it are scientists. Dr Pachuari, who was head of the IPCC until recently, is an Industrial Engineer / Economist who specialised in railways, he has no qualifications in Climate Science whatsoever. Also the points you made regarding CERN were way off the mark, no one is suggesting that science is corrupt. What I am suggesting is that the interpretation, by non scientists, of the findings of science is flawed and subject to political and economic bias, particularly when it comes to computer modelling. My evidence for this is that the predictions made for the effects of climate change, ever since climate science reversed it's opinion that we were heading for an ice age, have consistently been over stated.
So you agree that climate is changing (average temp getting higher) and that it is caused by humans. That's progress. EDIT: I agree that a lot of the politicisation of the issue has been bad and hasn't helped. That climate changes and always has is not the issue and does not mean AGW is not a problem. This video explains things better than I could. Skip to 40s in to avoid the irrelevant preamble.
Especially one who has to shell out huge bucks for Euro 6,after shelling out huge bucks for Euro 5... These mega increases in purchase cost,running costs and complication,are all subject to the the Law of Diminishing Returns. Euro 1 to Euro II was a mega advance. Euro II to Euro III was similar. Euro III to Euro IV,well,it required Adblue in most cases to treat the exhaust but what the hey,if it helps the environment. Euro IV to Euro V was a different kettle of fish: a whole mess of different strategies and designs to achieve a very small decrease in pollutants and in many cases an increase in fuel consumption. Euro V to Euro VI is a whole new nightmare...it achieves extremely small decreases in some emissions while increasing others,plus the fuelling issues. I know plenty about the costs of helping the environment,and I take pleasure in doing my bit. But man made climate change is a totally unproven concept,like those invisible omnipotent beings that a lot of people care so much for
From the IPCC website: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a huge and yet very small organization. Thousands of scientists from all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC on a voluntary basis as authors, contributors and reviewers. None of them is paid by the IPCC. The work of the IPCC is guided by a set of principles and procedures. " Because it has 4 major workstreams, one of which is the economic effect of climate change, maybe it makes sense to have an economist chairing the thing. Search me. It's not as if he is the bloke that tells everyone what is going on with the physics of climate change. For that there are the "thousands of scientists". If science isn't corrupt and it is hugely in agreement, I can't see why you wish to reject what the scientists have to say. Modelling is only part of what goes on. A huge amount of data is gathered from all over the world to see what is going on now. Yes, the climate has fluctuated in the past. No, Man is not responsible for all climate fluctuations. But, the speed of the current fluctuation is what is concerning and the fact that it appears to be caused by Man, not just something that would have happened anyway right now. Why does it matter? Because there are over 7 billion people on earth and many of them are adversely affected by the climate fluctuation. Frankly, the earth doesn't give a toss. Dinosaurs died out. If the polar bear goes the same way, the earth is indifferent. What counts is human destinies and some of us like the idea of the polar bear being around. I just can't see what is so difficult to understand about all this. I can see that if you live in the Lake District which remains a green, damp and not over-warm, pleasant place that it must all seem a bit irrelevant. But if you live elsewhere it can be hugely relevant. I have said all that I can. You can't change the position of people who don't want to be informed and wish to: believe in spite of the evidence believe what suits them invent conspiracy theories cling to straws think that the amount they have to pay for energy has any bearing upon science.
I have never denied that the climate is changing or that humans contribute to climate change. So no progress is being made there. Will you acknowledge that the climate has always changed due to natural processes and that at least some of those processes are still active today ? If you can do that then we may well be making some progress. The presenter claims that humans are responsible for the current climate change and just because the climate changed naturally in the past it is wrong to assume that it is changing naturally now. This is bollox, it is not the full story, it is being economical with the truth, it is piss poor science. He also failed to acknowledge the presence of other greenhouse gasses and focussed entirely on CO2. Maybe climate change is too important to be wholly truthful ?
Explains it better than I could. Explains it better than I have. But don't worry. Someone will say: he doesn't know what he is talking about. he isn't qualified to say these things he has been paid by a cabal of interests he is working in the service of a secret agenda he has been lied to by hundreds, if not thousands of people he is wrong, and they know better
