UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I'm a skeptic on this subject, and I think skepticism will continue because of the suspicion that the whole issue has, if not exactly been taken over, then at least largely influenced by politicians and companies out to make money from it.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:Neither have a problem. The ignorant who choose to ignore the science are the problem.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Might it be a bit like Darwinism (clip clop)? The real problem isn't with the science, it's with the vulgarisation of the science and the ideologies people build with the latter.
quote:Er... the problem is that politics and money do determine the propaganda.
Originally posted by anteater:
I can understand the frustration of the believers, because they have the overwhelming majority of orthodox science on their side, and just cannot bring themselves to admit that politics and money could still determine the propaganda.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Anthropogenic climate change skepticism: the belief that Greenpeace has more spare change than the oil industry.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:Would anyone like to characterise the decision making processes used to come to different and contradictory conclusions?
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Will this affect anyone's decision-making process?
quote:1 – climate change is real, what is uncertain is the degree to which human activity is causing it – however, that is really irrelevant – our activities are adding to the problem and by modifying our behaviour we will reduce the harm, even if some of it is just cyclical and unavoidable.
Originally posted by anteater:
Well I'm a skeptic on this subject, and I think skepticism will continue because of the suspicion that the whole issue has, if not exactly been taken over, then at least largely influenced by politicians and companies out to make money from it.
I can understand the frustration of the believers, because they have the overwhelming majority of orthodox science on their side, and just cannot bring themselves to admit that politics and money could still determine the propaganda.
BTW I suppose I'm contrarian by nature, and am equally skeptical about orthodox diet advice, and am following a low-carb high-fat diet (Atkins, really). However, there is a difference in the two cases. For my diet I have just had a lipid blood test, and if it shows the ratio of my HDL to triglycerides out of whack, I'll have to rethink. So it's a simple empirical test, and I would modify my view.
I can't do that for androgenic climate change.
quote:I don't know about anyone else, but my frustration comes from not understanding wny "skeptics" so strongly oppose reducing / becoming more efficient in our use of energy and resources, regardless of whether the global atmosphere and climate are changing, and regardless of what caused it. Using less energy saves money. Using resources more efficiently saves money. Polluting less saves money. WTF is wrong with saving money? OliviaG
Originally posted by anteater:
... I can understand the frustration of the believers, because they have the overwhelming majority of orthodox science on their side, and just cannot bring themselves to admit that politics and money could still determine the propaganda. ...
quote:Assuming you acknowledge anthropic climate change ("the science") is real (so you are "not ignoring it"), how does this affect your lifestyle, political choices and so on, and why?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Neither have a problem. The ignorant who choose to ignore the science are the problem.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Might it be a bit like Darwinism (clip clop)? The real problem isn't with the science, it's with the vulgarisation of the science and the ideologies people build with the latter.
quote:I vote Green. I don't have a car, have only flown twice in my life, argue in favour of renewable energy sources including wind turbines. I try to reduce my energy use and recycle and reuse where possible. I also encourage my church to do the same. I try to use things until they fall apart and repair them when they do, rather than just buying more.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:Assuming you acknowledge anthropic climate change ("the science") is real (so you are "not ignoring it"), how does this affect your lifestyle, political choices and so on, and why?
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
quote:Neither have a problem. The ignorant who choose to ignore the science are the problem.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Might it be a bit like Darwinism (clip clop)? The real problem isn't with the science, it's with the vulgarisation of the science and the ideologies people build with the latter.
quote:I'm ainly thinking about the megabucks made by UK energy companies who flogged off carbon credits given free by the UK Gov, and which they didn't need.
How much money can either party make from climate change?
quote:This cannot stand until you quantify what harm reduction we can put in place, and further, compare this with other possible harm reduction that these resources can be put to.
1 – climate change is real, <SNIP> . . and by modifying our behaviour we will reduce the harm, even if some of it is just cyclical and unavoidable.
quote:I think the bigger issue is that no-one in the media is prepared to talk about the elephants in the room. The fact is that we can't tackle climate change without adjusting to the fact that we can't travel all the time, and certainly not by car or plane. People have got used, in the last 30-50 years, to being able to go pretty much where they want, and even people on modest incomes have got used to taking foreign holidays. Nobody wants to hear that, unless technology develops rapidly and we have massive investment in replacing both electrical infrastructure and the legacy vehicle fleet, long distance travel needs to be a rarity. Many in the Green movement have been tiptoeing around this, because the favourite argument of the right is that Greens are anti-technology and want everyone to go back to the stone age.
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Fair enough, congratulations for your consistency. I can't quite match your credentials, but as a household I don't think we do too badly.
My point was that, as I recently argued here and here, not all believers in anthropic climate change seem to adjust their lifestyles to be consistent with their beliefs (even if it's only "baby steps").
My hunch is that this is due at least in part to the hysterical and guilt-inducing way climate change is reported in the media, which is not conducive to action. (In other words, vulgarisation matters).
quote:Well, the other day I made the choice not to buy bottled water that had been imported to Europe from Fiji.
Assuming you acknowledge anthropic climate change ("the science") is real (so you are "not ignoring it"), how does this affect your lifestyle, political choices and so on, and why?
quote:I cannot help but see a weird parallel between this and your dieting.
Originally posted by anteater:
This cannot stand until you quantify what harm reduction we can put in place, and further, compare this with other possible harm reduction that these resources can be put to.
quote:We're not actually spending very much at all. Renewable energy at present adds about £10 to the average yearly electricity bill. Countries that are wealthy enough to take the lead need to do so in order to develop the technology so that China and India (and Nigeria, Indonesia et al) can industrialise without the horrendous impact we've had on the environment. We also have to exert some moral leadership, because we certainly can't sit here in comparative luxury and tell China off for trying to reach our standard of living. Any change has to start with the richest countries. Some of it, like improving energy efficiency, will save money in the long run. Insulating every home in the country would cost a relatively modest amount and provide an immediate boost the economy, putting people into work and reducing everyone's fuel bills. The current recession is the perfect opportunity to do it.
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I believe it is real, but I'm not sure how much is human made and how much natural.
What I am sceptic about is whether there is anything we (that is humanity) can do that will sort it. Given that China's increase in carbon emissions each year is greater than the UK's total carbon emissions, I'm pretty sure there's nothing the UK alone can do about it. And we are currently spending vast sums and making ourselves uncompetitive by trying, presumably on the theory that if we set a good example everyone else will follow. Sorry, but they won't.
quote:Because building a sustainable future using renewable energy isn't enough of a goal on its own, right?
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I believe it is real, but I'm not sure how much is human made and how much natural.
What I am sceptic about is whether there is anything we (that is humanity) can do that will sort it. Given that China's increase in carbon emissions each year is greater than the UK's total carbon emissions, I'm pretty sure there's nothing the UK alone can do about it. And we are currently spending vast sums and making ourselves uncompetitive by trying, presumably on the theory that if we set a good example everyone else will follow. Sorry, but they won't.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Fresh drinking water won't protect against rising sea levels - A study in the April, 2007 issue of Environment and Urbanization reports that 634 million people live in coastal areas within 30 feet (9.1 m) of sea level. The study also reported that about two thirds of the world's cities with over five million people are located in these low-lying coastal areas. The IPCC report of 2007 estimated that accelerated melting of the Himalayan ice caps and the resulting rise in sea levels would likely increase the severity of flooding in the short term during the rainy season and greatly magnify the impact of tidal storm surges during the cyclone season. A sea-level rise of just 400 mm in the Bay of Bengal would put 11 percent of the Bangladesh's coastal land underwater, creating 7–10 million climate refugees. Quoted in Wikipedia
Originally posted by anteater:
HughWillRidMe:
quote:This cannot stand until you quantify what harm reduction we can put in place, and further, compare this with other possible harm reduction that these resources can be put to.
1 – climate change is real, <SNIP> . . and by modifying our behaviour we will reduce the harm, even if some of it is just cyclical and unavoidable.
This is the basic argument of Bjorn Lomborg, and seems cogent to me, although his book is not at all a good read. He would say that it is possible to agree with the scientific orthodoxy and still believe that it is not a priority when compared with other ways in which the population could be protected - like fresh drinking water.
quote:I never understand this argument, because if it was applied to other areas of life everyone would rapidly sink to the lowest common denominator. It's the psychological equivalent of what happened in the UK riots last year and people started taking the opportunity to go looting. Why follow the law if everyone around you isn't?
Originally posted by Sighthound:
I believe it is real, but I'm not sure how much is human made and how much natural.
What I am sceptic about is whether there is anything we (that is humanity) can do that will sort it. Given that China's increase in carbon emissions each year is greater than the UK's total carbon emissions, I'm pretty sure there's nothing the UK alone can do about it. And we are currently spending vast sums and making ourselves uncompetitive by trying, presumably on the theory that if we set a good example everyone else will follow. Sorry, but they won't.
quote:It depends. If you put down your rifle, you may be articulating exactly what the others are thinking.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Orfeo,
Perhaps the thought is that an appropriate analogy is more like "How much difference will it make if I am the only one in the firing squad that doesn't shoot".
quote:That rather depends on how many bullets it might take to kill the extremely large individual in front of the firing squad.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Orfeo,
Perhaps the thought is that an appropriate analogy is more like "How much difference will it make if I am the only one in the firing squad that doesn't shoot".
quote:Female education does that on its own. There's a fair amount of research to support this idea. Besides, given the relative consumption of India vs the USA (for example) increases in the Indian population are a lot less significant than rises in the US population.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
But I haven't seen a revolution to limit population, which IMO is the major driving force.
quote:The only obvious similarity is that both go against orthodox science. Which is not a comfortable place to be. Generally I have a decent respect for expertise, but less so when it gets tied up with politics, which even diet does this because Governments feel bound to give official advice. And the Food Industry lobbies like Hell.
I cannot help but see a weird parallel between this and your dieting.
quote:This I totally disagree with. It's a bit of conventional wisdom that has been cogently argued against by many. And as a metter of fact, since I started on my diet, with no counting of calories I reduced from 85 to 80kg, though that is not my aim.
Want to lose weight? Eat fewer calories than you expend in energy. Any diet that tells you otherwise is a con. Any diet that makes it more complicated than this is making money off you unnecessarily.
quote:I could never believe that an approach that refuses to quantify, even accepting there will be a lot of approximations, will result in wise policies. Are you really saying that any measure that reduces greenhouse gas should be taken, no matter how unfavourable a cost-benefit analysis would be? Well, maybe you are, but that's not practical.
Want to reduce the level of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere? Emit less greenhouse gas. . . Quantification isn't really necessary.
quote:I hope you didn't think I was suggesting that it did!
Fresh drinking water won't protect against rising sea levels
quote:We're all do-o-o-omed. No doubt, and here is one of the chief problems. I have no idea what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections. Even worse, I probably couldn't understand it. So I have to take it on trust, which I'm reluctant to do. there's no way out of this.
The IPCC report of 2007 estimated that
quote:Absolutely. Because the ethical issue lies here. If human populations encroach into areas not suited in the long term to sustain them, is there a moral imperative to protect them, virtually no matter what. That's a tough question.
What would probably be worth spending considerable sums on is a global policy of population control
quote:What makes you doubt well understood, evidence-based Climate Science while you happily accept a single medical opinion based on the test of your lipids? Both are fields of science beyond your or my expertise, but you don't seem to be treating them the same.
Originally posted by anteater:
I have no idea what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections. Even worse, I probably couldn't understand it. So I have to take it on trust, which I'm reluctant to do. there's no way out of this.
quote:If you want to know what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections then I suggest you read the IPCC reports, which gives all that information (or, at least summarises it with references to other publications that give the details). Some of the peer-reviewed publications may only be available in journals which require a subscription, although many of them will also be on open access repositories (eg: held by the library of the university of the lead author).
Originally posted by anteater:
I have no idea what data, models and assumptions are built into the IPCC projections. Even worse, I probably couldn't understand it. So I have to take it on trust, which I'm reluctant to do. there's no way out of this.
quote:And there's the problem. You say that like it's a small number. It's actually a very, very fast change, and that's precisely why scientists are alarmed.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
That's a .5 degree rise in the entire twentieth century.
quote:... 'therefore' climate change is bunkum?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I once followed a large garbage-style truck going round the streets to collect all the stuff that was going for recycling - Oh so green! - and had to laugh as it belched out great clouds of black diesel exhaust!
quote:The same waste would be collected if it was going to landfill, there is still a net saving of energy.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I once followed a large garbage-style truck going round the streets to collect all the stuff that was going for recycling - Oh so green! - and had to laugh as it belched out great clouds of black diesel exhaust!
quote:Goodness me. I hadn't spotted that particular error. Honestly, that's scary.
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
6 degrees of warming are not 11% of anything. Celsisus is not an absolute scale.
quote:That's not being a sceptic. You are a non-expert bloke in the street expressing a non-expert opinion based on nothing but what you read in the opinion piece in a newspaper. A proper sceptic is someone who's qualified to assess the evidence and has done so and isn't as ready to accept what others accept.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have to admit to you all that I am a climate change sceptic.
Let me clarify that what that means is simply that I do not believe that mankind is causing it or has caused it.
quote:Wow. So to you, mistakes - even if discovered and corrected - mean that a whole body of work must be wrong. How daft is that? And 'conspiracy theories'? Uh?
If you want to ask why people like me think this way, there are a number of reasons and for me, none of them have anything to do with silly conspiracy theories - thouygh I do wonder sometimes ate the 'big business' of environmentalism...
Anyway, one of the reasons people are sceptical is that the data has often been wrong - I mean, people now know that Al Gore's film was inaccurate and yet people still watch it and believe it!
quote:Piffle, based on ignorance. If the measurements and proxies provide the data, how can you possibly say "and yet the truth " ? Where do your more accurate data come from?
Another reason is that we are told the earthn is warming up, we are told that there could be a 6 degree rise in temperatures, a 11 percent increase, that;s been devestating
, that it will be devastating - and yet the truth is that average temperatures have risen in a century from .1 degree below average to plus .4 degrees above average. That's a .5 degree rise in the entire twentieth century. That covers the two periods of temperature rise and the the periods of temperature falling, including the fall since 2000.
quote:So you remember something your teacher said which turned out to be wrong and use that as an excuse to conclude that anything connected with the subject is false. Wow.
Can you see why people are sceptical?
We see the scientists shouting that the sky is falling but it's not happening!
Next, the implication is always that the world was 'normal' until the industrial age but then we naughty and careless humans have steadily increased the earth's temperature by all the wicked things we have done. What many people say is that England, for example, was a warm country around 700 years ago - it was like the South of France, then we had a little ice age where the Thames froze every year until the dickensian era, but that now we are moving back to a warm period.
When I was a child at school all i heard from the teachers was that we are about to move back into another ice age, now we hear we're getting warmer (are we really/) but all that means is another global fluctuation, as has happened throughout the ages.
quote:More ignorance.
How can we puny humans 'claim credit' for warming the earth by HALF A DEGREE whern there is a huge ball of fire a mere few million miles away which by a tu=iny change to raise temperatures on thie earth by unimaginable amounts? It seems to many people that the change in temperatures - wherever they occur - have more to do with solar activity than the tiny changes we make.
quote:Still ignorance. You like anteater claim not to accept this one area of science, probably because something you read raised doubts. Can you remember how this happened?
in some ways i feel that the whole climate debate reveals so much about the arrogance olf man - "Oh look, the temperatures (may) have risen - we are so powerful and important, WE must have caused it."
I don't buy it at all.
quote:Wow. How can you say "if".
If the temperatures are rising - and as yet there is no evidence at all for the scaremongering of the huge predicted temperature rises, would it not be better to actually prepare for those possible sea level rises? [/QB]
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:I think there is, generally. There's also a strong correlation with right wing politics. You don't find many socialist creationists.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Is there a correlation among Christians between doubt over anthropogenic climate change and belief in creationism? ISTM both positions involve the choice to reject what the vast majority of scientists believe, citing a widespread conspiracy / corruption that is causing the truth to be suppressed.
quote:With regard to Gore's film, you may wish to read the actual judgement (Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education & Skills), before you conclude that the film was inaccurate. Below a short quotation from it:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Anyway, one of the reasons people are sceptical is that the data has often been wrong - I mean, people now know that Al Gore's film was inaccurate and yet people still watch it and believe it!
quote:http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
The Film
I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:
"The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change");
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases");
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects."
These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.
quote:Oh dear.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
quote:
quote:Now, some of you since this morning have told me that half a degree is significant, etc, but my point is that it's NOT 6 degrees or 11 degrees - it's a mere half a degree over a century! And in the context of 1000 years of meteorological history in the UK that half a degree is nothing when you consider that a very warm, 'Mediterranean' England was growing grapes in the 13th century and a very cold 'Arctic' England was skating around on the Thames for a couple of hundred years every winter until Charles Dickens wrote 'A Christmas Carol'!
Another reason is that we are told the earth is warming up, we are told that there could be a 6 degree rise in temperatures, an 11 degree increase, that it's been devestating, that it will be devastating - and yet the truth is that average temperatures have risen in a century from .1 degree below average to plus .4 degrees above average. That's a .5 degree rise in the entire twentieth century. That covers the two periods of temperature rise and the the periods of temperature falling, including the fall since 2000.
Can you see why people are sceptical?
We see the scientists shouting that the sky is falling but it's not happening!
quote:Of course I acknowledge that I am no scientist; but I am not stupid! I can observe, I can read, I can listen to arguments on both sides. I am afraid that, for me, and for many others, the scientsist have not convinced us and scare-mongering does help the cause.
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: The HadCRUT3 surface temperature index shows warming to 1878, cooling to 1911, warming to 1941, cooling to 1964, warming to 1998 and cooling through 2011. The warming rate from 1964 to 1998 was the same as the previous warming from 1911 to 1941. Satellites, weather balloons and ground stations all show cooling since 2001. The mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8 C over the 20th century is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects"). Two science teams have shown that correcting the surface temperature record for the effects of urban development would reduce the warming trend over land from 1980 by half.
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
quote:Snowfall amounts and temperature are two different things. On a warming planet there will be more moisture in the atmosphere that can fall as a snow if triggered by a disturbance.
And as for being in the North East of England, well yes - I remember all too well the weeks and weeks of unprecedented heavy snow that Newcastle experienced from the end of November 2010 into january 2011. It was a nightmare and I've never known sych snow or such low temperatures in my entire 50 years.
quote:Then you have clearly forgotten the winter of 1978/9
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
And as for being in the North East of England, well yes - I remember all too well the weeks and weeks of unprecedented heavy snow that Newcastle experienced from the end of November 2010 into january 2011. It was a nightmare and I've never known sych snow or such low temperatures in my entire 50 years.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Snowed in December, snow still on the ground at Easter, large parts of County Durham cut off for days on end...quote:I have had many students who have done just that. Can't write a coherent sentence, but are prepared to tell me that, let us say, the
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... It was like discovering that someone who didn't have a basic understanding of grammar taking to task the literary quality of a great book.
I guess this is a culture which encourages both the belief that "I'm entitled to my opinion" and "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". That way lies madness.
quote:I don't think that's the REASON for correlation. It's the belief that because God created the world for us, it can't possibly 'go wrong' in the way that climate science suggests. Somehow, God is still looking after it and keeping it perfect.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Is there a correlation among Christians between doubt over anthropogenic climate change and belief in creationism? ISTM both positions involve the choice to reject what the vast majority of scientists believe, citing a widespread conspiracy / corruption that is causing the truth to be suppressed.
quote:Since the onslaught of advertising and promotion endured (or embraced?) by the American public is itself in such execrable taste, it is no surprise that we have been conditioned to regard taste as inconsequential.
Originally posted by Grammatica:
quote:I have had many students who have done just that. Can't write a coherent sentence, but are prepared to tell me that, let us say, the
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
... It was like discovering that someone who didn't have a basic understanding of grammar taking to task the literary quality of a great book.
I guess this is a culture which encourages both the belief that "I'm entitled to my opinion" and "my opinion is worth just as much as yours". That way lies madness.
Iliad hasn't "stood the test of time" because it didn't happen to interest them.
It has become literally impossible to say to students, "Well, if it didn't interest you, you're the one with the problem, because it ought to have interested you, and would have if you had any taste at all."
The consumerist approach to education has done an enormous amount of damage. The consumerist approach to politics, ditto.
quote:Weather does not equal climate. Yes, it was bloody cold. Yes, it was very snowy. But if you knew anything about climate change, you'd know that extreme weather is more, not less likely. Remember the floods we had at the end of June? It's a result of more energy in the system.
And as for being in the North East of England, well yes - I remember all too well the weeks and weeks of unprecedented heavy snow that Newcastle experienced from the end of November 2010 into january 2011. It was a nightmare and I've never known sych snow or such low temperatures in my entire 50 years.
quote:Considering other possible countries to retire/escape to, I've always eliminated Canada because it's just too cold there (except around Vancouver, where it's too cloudy and wet). But that's changing.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Every single year, I've been picking fruit earlier and earlier. It used to be September. Then it slowly slid to the back end of August. Now it's the back end of July, and that's despite this year's crappy light levels, lack of pollinators and almost constant rain.
quote:it's more likely that creationists will believe that actually the world has gone to pot and can only be rescued by God.
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:I don't think that's the REASON for correlation. It's the belief that because God created the world for us, it can't possibly 'go wrong' in the way that climate science suggests. Somehow, God is still looking after it and keeping it perfect.
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Is there a correlation among Christians between doubt over anthropogenic climate change and belief in creationism? ISTM both positions involve the choice to reject what the vast majority of scientists believe, citing a widespread conspiracy / corruption that is causing the truth to be suppressed.
Despite having some mild creationist tendencies, I certainly don't subscribe to the other half of the equation. 20-odd years ago, I heard a talk that I still remember parts of, and the essence of it was that God is 'green'. God gave us a world to look after. He handed its care over to US, and made it OUR responsibility. A responsibility that we're not making a good fist of. And we shouldn't expect God to rush back in and fix our mess for us.
Climate science is also very much about measuring the observable here-and-now.
quote:
---Amuzgo de Guerrero (AMU)--- Amuzgo de Guerrero ---العربية (AR)--- Arabic Bible: Easy-to-Read Version Arabic Life Application Bible ---Български (BG)--- 1940 Bulgarian Bible Bulgarian Bible Bulgarian New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version Bulgarian Protestant Bible ---Chinanteco de Comaltepec (CCO)--- Chinanteco de Comaltepec ---Cakchiquel Occidental (CKW)--- Cakchiquel Occidental ---Kreyol (CPF)--- Haitian Creole Version ---Čeština (CS)--- Bible 21 Slovo na cestu ---Dansk (DA)--- Bibelen på hverdagsdansk Dette er Biblen på dansk ---Deutsch (DE)--- Hoffnung für Alle Luther Bibel 1545 Neue Genfer Übersetzung Schlachter 1951 Schlachter 2000 ---English (EN)--- 21st Century King James Version American Standard Version Amplified Bible Common English Bible Complete Jewish Bible Contemporary English Version Darby Translation Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition Easy-to-Read Version English Standard Version English Standard Version Anglicised GOD’S WORD Translation Good News Translation Holman Christian Standard Bible J.B. Phillips New Testament King James Version Lexham English Bible The Message Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament New American Standard Bible New Century Version New International Reader's Version New International Version New International Version 1984 New International Version - UK New King James Version New Life Version New Living Translation Today's New International Version Worldwide English (New Testament) Wycliffe Bible Young's Literal Translation ---Español (ES)--- La Biblia de las Américas Castilian Dios Habla Hoy Nueva Biblia Latinoamericana de Hoy Nueva Traducción Viviente Nueva Versión Internacional Nueva Versión Internacional (Castilian) Palabra de Dios para Todos La Palabra (España) La Palabra (Hispanoamérica) Reina Valera Contemporánea Reina-Valera 1960 Reina-Valera 1995 Reina-Valera Antigua Traducción en lenguaje actual ---Français (FR)--- La Bible du Semeur Louis Segond Nouvelle Edition de Genève – NEG1979 Segond 21 ---Κοινη (GRC)--- 1550 Stephanus New Testament 1881 Westcott-Hort New Testament 1894 Scrivener New Testament SBL Greek New Testament ---עיברית (HE)--- Habrit Hakhadasha/Haderekh The Westminster Leningrad Codex ---Hrvatski (HR)--- Croatian Bible ---Magyar (HU)--- Hungarian Károli Hungarian New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version ---Hawai‘i Pidgin (HWC)--- Hawai‘i Pidgin ---Íslenska (IS)--- Icelandic Bible ---Italiano (IT)--- Conferenza Episcopale Italiana La Nuova Diodati La Parola è Vita Nuova Riveduta 1994 Nuova Riveduta 2006 ---Jacalteco, Oriental (JAC)--- Jacalteco, Oriental ---Kekchi (KEK)--- Kekchi ---Latina (LA)--- Biblia Sacra Vulgata ---Māori (MI)--- Maori Bible ---Macedonian (MK)--- Macedonian New Testament ---Mam, Central (MVC)--- Mam, Central ---Mam, Todos Santos (MVJ)--- Mam de Todos Santos Chuchumatán ---Plautdietsch (NDS)--- Reimer 2001 ---Náhuatl de Guerrero (NGU)--- Náhuatl de Guerrero ---Nederlands (NL)--- Het Boek ---Norsk (NO)--- Det Norsk Bibelselskap 1930 En Levende Bok ---Polski (PL)--- Nowe Przymierze ---Português (PT)--- João Ferreira de Almeida Atualizada Nova Versão Internacional O Livro Portuguese New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version ---Quiché, Centro Occidenta (QUT)--- Quiché, Centro Occidental ---Română (RO)--- Cornilescu Noua Traducere În Limba Român Romanian ---Русский (RU)--- Russian New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version Russian Synodal Version Slovo Zhizny ---Slovenčina (SK)--- Nádej pre kazdého ---Somali (SO)--- Somali Bible ---Shqip (SQ)--- Albanian Bible ---Српски (SR)--- Serbian New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version ---Svenska (SV)--- Levande Bibeln Svenska 1917 Svenska Folkbibeln ---Kiswahili (SW)--- Swahili New Testament ---ภาษาไทย (TH)--- Thai New Contemporary Bible Thai New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version ---Tagalog (TL)--- Ang Salita ng Diyos ---Українська (UK)--- Ukrainian Bible Ukrainian New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version ---Uspanteco (USP)--- Uspanteco ---Tiêng Viêt (VI)--- 1934 Vietnamese Bible Ban Dich 2011 Vietnamese Bible: Easy-to-Read Version ---汉语 (ZH)--- Chinese Contemporary Bible Chinese New Testament: Easy-to-Read Version Chinese Standard Bible (Simplified) Chinese Standard Bible (Traditional) Chinese Union Version (Simplified) Chinese Union Version (Traditional) Chinese Union Version Modern Punctuation (Simplified) Chinese Union Version Modern Punctuation (Traditional)Page OptionsShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailAdd parallel<<<=
=>>>Show resources Romans 8:18-22
New International Version (NIV)
Present Suffering and Future Glory
18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.
22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time.
quote:Cities and gardeners tend to plant more male trees than female trees, because male trees aren't as messy; they do, however, disperse more pollens, since they don't get interupted to produce flowers and fruit. More pollens mean more human allergies.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE] .Every single year, I've been picking fruit earlier and earlier. It used to be September. Then it slowly slid to the back end of August. Now it's the back end of July, and that's despite this year's crappy light levels, lack of pollinators and almost constant rain.
quote:There are two issues with me.
Still ignorance. You like anteater claim not to accept this one area of science, probably because something you read raised doubts. Can you remember how this happened?
quote:No.
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
quote:Cities and gardeners tend to plant more male trees than female trees, because male trees aren't as messy; they do, however, disperse more pollens, since they don't get interupted to produce flowers and fruit. More pollens mean more human allergies.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE] .Every single year, I've been picking fruit earlier and earlier. It used to be September. Then it slowly slid to the back end of August. Now it's the back end of July, and that's despite this year's crappy light levels, lack of pollinators and almost constant rain.
So, could it not be argued that palnting male trees contributes to global climate change, because they unaturally fill the air with pollens and also with flem and lung butter distributed by allergic people who sneeze a lot and cough up a lung?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Wot DocTor said. The vast majority of both economic and ornamental plants have flowers with both male and female parts. The only economic plants I can think of that don't are Kiwi fruits, and the only ornamental trees I can think of are Ginkgos and Hollies. I'm certain there are a few more, but as I say they are the exception rather than the rule.
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
quote:Cities and gardeners tend to plant more male trees than female trees, because male trees aren't as messy; they do, however, disperse more pollens, since they don't get interupted to produce flowers and fruit. More pollens mean more human allergies.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[QUOTE] .Every single year, I've been picking fruit earlier and earlier. It used to be September. Then it slowly slid to the back end of August. Now it's the back end of July, and that's despite this year's crappy light levels, lack of pollinators and almost constant rain.
So, could it not be argued that palnting male trees contributes to global climate change, because they unaturally fill the air with pollens and also with flem and lung butter distributed by allergic people who sneeze a lot and cough up a lung?
quote:When I first read Anteater's post, my reaction was "eek, yikes!"
Originally posted by anteater:
ClintBoggis:
quote:There are two issues with me.
Still ignorance. You like anteater claim not to accept this one area of science, probably because something you read raised doubts. Can you remember how this happened?
First I refuse to accept scientists as some sort of secular magesterium. True: they know more than I ever will about this but that doesn't lead me to trust them. Scientific advice is often misleading and harmful. A lot of publicity is now given to the fact that the current obesity epidemic arose after scientific advice was given to demonize fats and say not too much about sugars. I think it may well turn out that Statin-fever is misplaced, though I do take them. There are many example. I'm sure you don't think scientists always get it right, so why must I always obey them? ,,,
quote:As far as I'm concerned, it is common knowledge. It leads not only to more pollen (and therefore more allergic misery) but also to less wildlife, since the fruits that birds and other creatures would eat is absent. It's a thoroughly wrong-headed policy.
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Perhaps I should have included a link in my earlier posting; I thought this was common knowledge and a link would not be needed. There are many similar papers and comments on this topic, should you wish to Google it!
quote:My grandfather was a master gardener, with several acres of greenhouse under his control. Also, I used to have an allotment and hang out with the gadgies, drinking tea and talking.
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Perhaps I should have included a link in my earlier posting; I thought this was common knowledge and a link would not be needed. There are many similar papers and comments on this topic, should you wish to Google it!
quote:Because we're getting it on compound interest.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can anyone actually tell me where the 6 degree rise comes frolm?
Can anyone actuyally tell me why a half a degree rise over 100 years of continuous and alternate cooling and warming cycles is actually 'catastrophic'?
quote:Well, maybe this is a pond difference thing then. Just having reviewed a list of the most common dioecious woody plants (here), the only ones likely to be used in public plantings here on any scale are Acer, Fraxinus, Ginkgo, Ilex, Populus and Salix. AFAIK the ones that are widely available in clonal form are Ilex and Populus. The former has as many male as female clones, though I don't know anything about the latter. There are some Salix clones available that are used for special situations, but as for the rest I think they are mostly seed-grown, or from random cuttings. The English Garden look doesn't really go for repetitive plantings of individual clones.
Originally posted by Silver Faux:
Perhaps I should have included a link in my earlier posting; I thought this was common knowledge and a link would not be needed. There are many similar papers and comments on this topic, should you wish to Google it!
quote:You might want to try reading some actual science rather than journalists' versions of science. Pretty much any popular article - whether print, radio, or TV - about a scientific topic will have some assortment of mis-statements, unsupported conclusions, and just plain bullshit. OliviaG, B.Sc. (1st Class)
Originally posted by anteater:
... First I refuse to accept scientists as some sort of secular magesterium. True: they know more than I ever will about this but that doesn't lead me to trust them. Scientific advice is often misleading and harmful. ...
quote:And yet:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
Here's a link to animations of the data about the amount of ice in the Arctic since 1979 when the NSIDC started measuring.
Arctic Ice drop
In order for that colossal amount of ice to have melted there must be a lot of heat up there.
quote:Depends what you mean by prove, but you're wrong. We know the mechanism, we have models that make predictions and those predictions have been verified. That's proof as far as physics goes. My background is in Theoretical Physics and, while I'm not a climatologist, I do understand the basic quantum physics at the heart of this, and it's pretty much indisputable - to bring down our understanding of climate change you'd have to bring down much of modern physics, as well as other disciplines. You're welcome to try.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I do not disagree that there is change afoot in the world's climate - you'd have to live in a cave not to notice - but my 2 issues are firstly with the idea that mankind has caused it all, when the science does not prove that at all,
quote:And yet your second link starts:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:And yet:
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
[qb] Here's a link to animations of the data about the amount of ice in the Arctic since 1979 when the NSIDC started measuring.
Arctic Ice drop
In order for that colossal amount of ice to have melted there must be a lot of heat up there.
HERE
and
HERE
we find examples of data that, whilst not pretending to contradict the thinning of ice elsewhere, does show another aspect to the subject of climate change that is never reported.
quote:I fail to understand the need for an exclamation mark. Or did you think this was just a pretty sculpture?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My son came home from school telling me that the teacher had told them that soon London would be under water!
quote:No it was a reflection of the annoyance i feel when i hear people scaremongering others with unproven ;'facts' that are based on future computer based predictions that cannot be possible verified.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:I fail to understand the need for an exclamation mark. Or did you think this was just a pretty sculpture?
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
My son came home from school telling me that the teacher had told them that soon London would be under water!
quote:You know why it won't? It won't because of the very science you ignore, rail against and disparage.
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
London will not go under water.
quote:Each and every one of those closures was to prevent London flooding, and your son is better served listening to his teachers than you.
In the 1980s there were four closures, 35 closures in the 1990s, and 75 closures in the first decade of this century. All told, there have been 119 flood defence closures up to the closing on March 2, 2010.
quote:As to the 0.5 compared to 6
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
They talk about a 6 degree rise in 50 years when they can only point to half a degree in the entire twentieth century.
quote:Of course a single event, like an unprecedented rate of sea-ice over a week, is not necessarily an indicator of climate change. The average volume and extent of sea-ice over decadal periods, however, is a much more significant indicator that the climate is changing.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The loss of ice up there over the last 7 or do days has been ridiculous.
quote:Indeed. A new low for Arctic Ice Extent today in the IJIS measure. Lots of info, including decadal averages on this page:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:Of course a single event, like an unprecedented rate of sea-ice over a week, is not necessarily an indicator of climate change. The average volume and extent of sea-ice over decadal periods, however, is a much more significant indicator that the climate is changing.
Originally posted by Mr Clingford:
The loss of ice up there over the last 7 or do days has been ridiculous.