homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: The Thread Where Everyone Argues If Man-Induced Climate Change Is Real
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Post your old and new postings here! This is my vigilante attempt to clear up the many climate change threads. This is the place to argue about whether or not man-induced climate change (or anthropogenic climate change, or ACC) is real.

The IPCC say that there is a 90% or greater chance that the current climate change is man-induced. Temperatures are most likely to rise between 1.8 and 4 degrees celsius between now and 2099. The IPCC represents the top 2,500 climate scientists in the world, and thus this represents a consensus of the entire field. The findings have been endorsed by (AFAIK) all governments worldwide, including America, whose right wing Bush administration called the science now "beyond doubt".

So sceptics, doubters, conspiracy theorists and David Bellamy come on down! Try and convince the ship that the consensus is wrong - but you'll need to explain away all the above facts to be in with a chance. We're in for a bumpy ride!!!! Good luck!!!!! Whooooooaaaa!!!!!!

[You should know that there are no "official" threads in Purgatory]

[ 14. August 2008, 12:32: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252

 - Posted      Profile for Divine Outlaw   Author's homepage   Email Divine Outlaw   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Which Shipmate do we suppose is David Bellamy?

--------------------
insert amusing sig. here

Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Okay, I cut and pasted my last comment (of skepticism):

Few of us are denying that there is global warming. But the beef is with the numbers. When the IPCC (was this there? I think it was) marks an 18th century methane output at "zero" then increases from there to now, I think the numbers are screwy: what happened to all those cows back then? No methane? Right... so what are they saying with the numbers? Seems like they are playing a numbers game to make a scary point, to convince the credulous.

Speaking for myself, what we have here is not denial, but suspicion that the skewed numbers are a deliberate scare tactic to make a power grab via the U. N. It hurts America because we get nothing in return for our sacrifices. Oh, we already have too much, I forgot. We should be glad to cut back and become like everyone else, become a third-rate nation and join the rest of the U. N. which carps about how we are ruining the planet with our careless lifestyle. I have a couple of things to say about that:

America has always led the rest of the world in conservation awareness: we instituted national parks, now other nations have copied that to a limited extent: we have always been the first to announce the dangers of exploiting resources, to point out where this is occurring. Our cities are cleaner, air and water, than they have ever been during the industrial era, despite a vastly increased population.

If the largest conservation movements began and reside still in America, it is also true that the largest money interests are here: the very people who rape the planet to get rich. That's the irony. And another irony is, that the "Greens" who are not Americans look only at the latter and seem to have forgotten the former.

America will continue to be conservation conscious and proactive. What most Americans will not volunteer for, is submitting to some ingenious power grab, which is apparently trying to create a new "monetary" system out of "carbon debt." So, we are refusing to restrict our CPUs enough, and because we are putting out more than our allowed assessment, we OWE the complying nations "carbon debt." We can pay that off by sending them stuff that they want/need: thus encouraging them to underdevelop even more, and suck their conveniences and commodities from the USA, the most carbon indebted nation in the world. Anyone see this as impossible to set up? Looney? Then you're the ones in denial, because that's EXACTLY how coalitions work together in the modern world to try and get a cheap or free piece of the action. Wake up. This whole thing is a political power grab, and Americans are going to pay for most of it.

Here's the main reason why I distrust the whole bag of carp: the news is, "Do something now before the planet is ruined for the next thousands of years." This is backed up by scientists speaking for the U. N. If they were sincere in the disseminating of these findings, they would be addressing what we should be doing to adapt to the projected changes, not telling everyone to stop living the way we have grown accustomed. As if the proposed demands for changed living style is going to keep the climate the same, or preserve the ecosystem in its present state somehow (when in reality, all we can do is slow down, at best, what the earth is doing anyway). But what makes this climate, this ecosystem so special? Warming and cooling have occurred many times, and will do so in the future: with the earth slowly getting more cold. Adaption of species is the norm: we can't save the earth from itself: and we can't have a permanent impact that threatens the earth's capacity to support life: life will change, with or without us. This sounds unacceptable to "Greens" I am sure. But telling everyone to stop eating oranges where they don't grow (i.e. stop importing one calorie of food per 36 calories of energy to get it on the shelf, i.e. support only your local farmers markets), and to stop driving, and to move in close to town into a small house, sharing a turbine windmill with nine other houses, and to stop using cheap fossil fuels (but expensive alternatives instead), and stop traveling except by rail or other public transit, to walk, take the bus or ride a bike, etc., is falling on deaf ears. People will not move, give up or change what they want to keep. And to institute taxes, to discourage the buying and use of commodities that are deemed to exacerbate CPU output, is something I don't want to give the slightest credence to. Power grab, and that means someone gets more of my money. To hell with that sort of "fix" says I.

None of this climatic change is going to happen faster than we can make changes to meet it. If we are treated like free adults and not working plebs. When we see the oceans rising, we will build dikes for the early onset, and relocate to higher ground as the century moves on. If the growing seasons shorten in some spots, if the growing areas shift, we will adjust and keep going. If we are intent on developing alternative energy sources, we won't require further inducements. I don't know anyone who wants to keep using fossil fuels till they run dry, THEN worry about how we are going to keep warm after that. We are doing something about it now. But making a power grab out of the supposed looming disaster (should be spelled, c.h.a.n.g.e.) is surely counter productive: because too many people are not buying the rhetoric and game being played with the numbers….

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Merlin the Mad said
quote:
When the IPCC (was this there? I think it was) marks an 18th century methane output at "zero" then increases from there to now, I think the numbers are screwy: what happened to all those cows back then? No methane?
If you are talking of the graph on page 6 of the IPCC summary report then the graph shows the atmospheric methane concentration starting at 750ppb 100 years ago, which has a radiative forcing effect of 0 W per m2. By the year 2000 the concentration has increased to 1500ppb or so, with a radiative forcing 0.5 W per m2. So the zero is not the concentration of methane but the effect of the methane that was being produced by all those cows on the global temperature. Feel free to post a link to a different graph showing what you state, if there is one. Otherwise it might be prudent to check your facts before posting if there is to be a sensible debate.

America is proactive at conservation - great! Very important. But this is not the same as taking care of the whole environment. Conservation is irrelevant if the climate changes enough. Americans also happen to consume on average 50 times that of a Nigerian (Europe isn't much better - about 20 times). And generate about 5 x the global average amount of CO2. See this US site for an example Thus they are responsible for a much greater amount of climate change than their 'fair share' (and even more than a sustainable level).

The reason why the scientists (many of whom are American) are saying that amongst other things we need to change our way of life is that is not sustainable to carry on like that much longer. We cannot keep spending carbon at the rate we are without serious consequences. Technological fixes will not be sufficient. And it is up to the people having the most impact to do something about it instead of selfishly refusing to move out of their comfort zone.

MerlintheMad also says
quote:
Adaption of species is the norm: we can't save the earth from itself: and we can't have a permanent impact that threatens the earth's capacity to support life: life will change, with or without us.
Quite true. Personally I would prefer life on earth to include humans (though recognising that other species might prefer the opposite), but even if we totally wreck the environment, there will still be life. I'd like my children and their descendants to have somewhere to live - selfish I admit.

I also quite agree that on the whole that individuals will not make decisions sufficient to reverse climate change. That's why we need governments to pass laws and international agreements to ensure the action is sufficient because people have a choice. Taxes are one instrument, carbon trading possibly another (I am also rather sceptical about how this would work as it happens, it seems ripe for corruption to me), other incentives, research into better 'green' techologies are others.

I would be very happy for the US to carry on destroying the environment as much as it likes, and sort out the problems technologically as you suggest. Unfortunately the US is not a closed system. What the US does impacts on the rest of the world. You need to be mindful of that, particularly as the countries most affected by the likely effects of global warming are not the countries causing most of the problems. Guess which countries will suffer most from droughts, floods, extreme weather etc?

Obviously research into renewable energy is vitally important. But it isn't enough on its own. Changes in lifestyle are also needed.

If you want to have a genuine debate about what the best thing to do about climate change, then lets do it. There is plenty to discuss. But I have to say I found the overall tone of your post hysterical and, in places, frankly bizarre. I'm sure you're not really like that, so let's have a sensible discussion instead - more productive in the long run.

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Merchant Trader
Shipmate
# 9007

 - Posted      Profile for Merchant Trader     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
................. Oh, we already have too much, I forgot. We should be glad to cut back and become like everyone else, become a third-rate nation and join the rest of the U. N. which carps about how we are ruining the planet with our careless lifestyle. I have a couple of things to say about that.................

quote:
Originally posted by JonahMan:
Americans also happen to consume on average 50 times that of a Nigerian (Europe isn't much better - about 20 times). And generate about 5 x the global average amount of CO2.

So America consumes 2.5 times European consumption. That seems to give plenty of potential for cutting back without becoming a '3rd rate nation' - unless MerlintheMad is trying to tell us something of what he thinks of us.

IMHO in Europe we have a very good standard of living, rich culture and, for most people, plenty. We have room to cut waste. However, surely it must be easier to make cuts if you are consuming 2.5 the European figure.

I love going to te U.S. both on business and to see very close friends. However, built in waste in transportation (e.g. excessive use of very big cars for 5 min journeys), airconditioning/heating, packaging, the selling of food in big packs (waste and refrigeration) etc etc are all very obvious and freely admitted by just about every U.S. friend we have. I admit that on our last holiday trip we enjoyed 'easy living' but would generally contend that a more European approach does offer an alternative with little or no sacrifice in overall quality of life. Even then there would be a fair way to go,

--------------------
... formerly of Muscovy, Lombardy & the Low Countries; travelling through diverse trading stations in the New and Olde Worlds

Posts: 1328 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Atheist
Arrogant Bastard
# 12067

 - Posted      Profile for The Atheist   Author's homepage   Email The Atheist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, you can put me in the AGW camp.

When the Y2K business was in full swing, I told people not to worry, nothing would happen.

When H5N1 was going to strike, I warned people against spending money on Tamiflu.

I battle against 9/11 CTists.

As the happy recipient of the Ozone Hole above our sunny shores, the whole pollution/AGW subject is an area of high interest to Kiwis. We didn't create the bloody ozone hole, but it's giving us skin cancer!

Despite such names as David Bellamy being a non-believer, I have found that the credible evidence lies with AGW. Sure, the jury is still out to a large degree, climatic science is new and fast-evolving, but all logic says that we can't be pumping the amount of shit we do into the atmosphere without doing some damage.

Doing nothing doesn't look like a smart option.

Posts: 2044 | From: Auckland | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jason™

Host emeritus
# 9037

 - Posted      Profile for Jason™   Author's homepage   Email Jason™   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Though this thread has been sanctioned by the hosts, I'll make a firm request that posts stick closely to the main topic here, keeping tangents on their own threads.

Professor Kirke
Purgatory Host

[Edited to fix my mistaken closing.]

[ 08. February 2007, 04:24: Message edited by: Professor Kirke ]

Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I haven't been following the argument in other threads, so I'm not sure how helpful this overview will be. It may be obvious to you all.

The understanding I left school with (some 45 years ago) was that in between Ice Ages, the earth did get warmer and there was evidence for this. There were plenty of theories about this natural global warming, but no definitive explanations. So to some extent I expect global warming to be a natural phenomenon on the basis of previous geleological evidence. Now this is "old science" but I had understood that more detailed research into the cyclical effects was intended to find explanations, and had not invalidated the general thesis that natural global warming was to be expected.

From that perspective, it would seem that the man-made effects (measured from say a base point of the 19th century Industrial Revolution) would be real if they can be demonstrated to be "over and above" any expected natural global warming trend. My guess is that, from the geological evidence alone, it is not that easy to produce a definitive trend line. One which says "if it happens this time like its happened in the past, this will be the mean increase in temperature over time".

So in essence, at least a part of the argument must be whether it is possible to be sure enough about the natural trend line to say for sure that man-made effects are driving it off-trend. The settled view of the majority of the scientific community appears to be that the line is "off trend" as a result of man-made effects. That is good enough for me.

But even if that were wrong it does not invalidate arguments which say we might mitigate short term (in geological terms hundreds of years) effects by changing behaviour. There are "micro" and a "macro" levels to this argument which I confess I do not fully understand.

A bit tangentially, my opinion is as follows. In principle, whatever the science says, I'm in favour of "stewardship" versus "cowboy" approaches to environmental issues. That seems morally and ethically right.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
argue about whether or not man-induced climate change (or anthropogenic climate change, or ACC) is real.

Pointless. No-one really doubts that climate change is real. And arguing about whodunnit is irrelevant. If its our fault I'm sure God will let us know about it at the last judgement.

But whether it is our fault or not we still need to do the same things. So talking about what to do is more relevant thatn whether or not we made it happen.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
[qb] argue about whether or not man-induced climate change (or anthropogenic climate change, or ACC) is real.

Pointless. No-one really doubts that climate change is real.
Sadly, this isn't entirely true, even though the evidence is staring people in the face.

quote:
And arguing about whodunnit is irrelevant. If its our fault I'm sure God will let us know about it at the last judgement.

But whether it is our fault or not we still need to do the same things. So talking about what to do is more relevant thatn whether or not we made it happen.

It is relevant to the extent that it helps you decide what to do. If you know what and who is causing the problem, that tells you something about what you need to do to counteract it.

If ACC was coming from natural causes then the actions we would need to take would be rather different than if the cause is excessive CO2 production by humans. Well, not quite true, thinking about it - even if the temperature rise was 10% anthropogenic and 90% natural cutting that 10% would see be worthwhile - but it is a more compelling argument that we need to cut CO2 emissions when we know it is these which are the real cause. In practice I find people who say that they agree that global warming is happening but don't think it's caused by humans have selfish motives (maintaining their standard of living or their way of making money, usually )rather than because they have actually studied the issue and have a credible scientific explanation for their views.

Anyway, people should know The Truth™ [Two face]

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:

So sceptics, doubters, conspiracy theorists and David Bellamy come on down!

David Bellamy has now admitted that his arguments were misplaced, and will remain silent on the matter henceforth.

His contention was that increased CO2 would just be assimilated by increased plant-growth, but the small-scale studies performed to test this have suggested this is not the case.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Carys

Ship's Celticist
# 78

 - Posted      Profile for Carys   Email Carys   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given that we're cutting the trees down, there's that problem too. At least when we were using wood for fuel, the burning of it only released back the CO2 taken in by the trees. That's the problem with fossil fuels, we're realising Carbon stored for millenia!

Carys

--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise

Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
His contention was that increased CO2 would just be assimilated by increased plant-growth

This is what I expect to happen. But I'm not so sure of it that I would want us to take the risk of not cutting CO2 output. When in hole stop digging.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
His contention was that increased CO2 would just be assimilated by increased plant-growth

This is what I expect to happen. But I'm not so sure of it that I would want us to take the risk of not cutting CO2 output. When in hole stop digging.
I'm not so sure about that... in most parts of the world, carbon isn't limiting for plant growth - in the absence of additional nitrogen, phosphorus, or water (or iron in the case of phytoplankton), I'd be surprised to see much of our additional carbon being soaked up in that way.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
JonahMan:

If you are talking of the graph on page 6 of the IPCC summary report then the graph shows the atmospheric methane concentration starting at 750ppb 100 years ago, which has a radiative forcing effect of 0 W per m2. By the year 2000 the concentration has increased to 1500ppb or so, with a radiative forcing 0.5 W per m2. So the zero is not the concentration of methane but the effect of the methane that was being produced by all those cows on the global temperature. Feel free to post a link to a different graph showing what you state, if there is one. Otherwise it might be prudent to check your facts before posting if there is to be a sensible debate.

Nope. I wasn't that. Sorry. I don't have the magazine in front of me, but look in the current issue of SciAm; there's an article which shows in the first graph, how 300 years ago there was zero methane. Bad chart, I suspect. Or deliberate fudge of the numbers? Anytime you read where "since the mini iceage", or similar, you are seeing someone fudge the numbers; because the climate change window is much larger than that. Starting out showing zero methane 300 years ago, and comparing that to now, is not being honest.

Many doubt that thousands of scientists could be in cahoots with the U. N. in a conspiratorial power grab. But it isn't the information which is conspiratorial; it is the way it is being taken advantage of. Scientists that discovered nuclear power did not want the Bomb. And scientists who forecast doom if we continue on our present way of life most likely do not want greater governmental controls to become abusive; but the fear of that is not going to make them shut up. The U. N. powers will take the veracity of scientific consensus and twist it to gain advantages on the United States. That isn't being "hysterical." It is being realistic....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Merchant Trader:

So America consumes 2.5 times European consumption. That seems to give plenty of potential for cutting back without becoming a '3rd rate nation' - unless MerlintheMad is trying to tell us something of what he thinks of us.

No. Sorry for the inclusive tone. Most U. N. members are NOT Europeans, but "genuine" underdeveloped, oppressive, even backward regimes, pretending to be around a table with real democracies discussing human civil rights advancement. ::pfffthbt::

quote:
IMHO in Europe we have a very good standard of living, rich culture and, for most people, plenty. We have room to cut waste. However, surely it must be easier to make cuts if you are consuming 2.5 the European figure.

Nothing in my attitude targets European cultures. I have a disagreement with the amount and type of controls governments "over there" have. Way of life is certainly second only to the U. S. of A., imho: based solely upon opportunity and lack of "red tape" types of hassles in daily life. We don't have near the socialistic infrastructure that much of Europe has in place. We have more resources and wide open spaces, still. Room to move, literally, without getting in someone else's way. It affects the way we think and live enormously. So there are clear differences in lifestyle based on origins. I don't know any emigrants who have any intention of ever returning to their motherlands, despite how much complaining they do about conditions over here: missing the atmosphere of home is never replacable with better living standards: but in this imperfect world, to get the latter you have to give up the former. Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Funnily enough the Americans I know who immigrated here mostly don't want to go back there either...

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Funnily enough the Americans I know who immigrated here mostly don't want to go back there either...

Most of the ex-pat Americans I know, including myself, could be described as "born-again Canadians". Some still visit and have family in the US, but laugh if you even suggest going back to live there. OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
moron
Shipmate
# 206

 - Posted      Profile for moron   Email moron   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
This is my vigilante attempt to clear up the many climate change threads.
Good luck.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.

I'm not quite sure I get where you are coming from, MerlintheMad (except America, obviously!) Are you suggesting that the American Way Of Life (TM) is the way that the rest of the world should aspire to?

If so, how exactly does that square with the fact that, per person, American's emit double the amount of CO2 of their nearest competitor and 50 times that of the poorest? So presumably this prescription for the world would accelerate the CO2 in the atmosphere much faster than even the current most gloomy predictions. The only two rational arguments I can think of that would back this up are:

a) Any link between CO2 level and rising global temperatures is false, and the world's scientists (including Amercian) are involved in a giant conspiracy, or

b) You couldn't care less.

Give us a heads up as to which is correct, and if it is a), some actual alternate scientific evidence might help elevate your case...

[ 08. February 2007, 19:11: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.

I'm not quite sure I get where you are coming from, MerlintheMad (except America, obviously!) Are you suggesting that the American Way Of Life (TM) is the way that the rest of the world should aspire to?
Whereas I read it to mean that people emigrate to the States to live a better life from the one they felt they had 'at home'. In much the same way as people emigrate to the UK for a better life. Isn't that why people emigrate? To find a better life for themselves?

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Pointless. No-one really doubts that climate change is real. And arguing about whodunnit is irrelevant. If its our fault I'm sure God will let us know about it at the last judgement.

I couldn't agree more. But what worries me is that the biggest political parties we have here in the UK, Labour and Conservative, have jumped on the bandwagon of "green taxes" to help the environment. Forgive my cinicism after almost 53 years of living under both parties, but I think that green taxes are just another way of putting our hard earned cash into government coffers, not of protecting the environment. An example, using this modern idea of the carbon footprint, though I am approximating as I can't remember the exact figures.

Low cost airlines are a joy to the modern traveler. My wife, who is Irish, can visit her folks in the West of Ireland every 2-3 months for a hopover, because, if you book in advance, the flights can cost from 99 pence to £5.99 plus taxes. Its possible to fly from London to Edinburgh for less than £20. Yet a return ticket on a train can cost up to £200. The carbon footprint of a flight to Edinburgh compared to a train journey is astronomical. So what do these politicians propose? They propose to tax cheap flights out of existence. They never contemplate doing something to make train travel reasonable and competitive, just freeze out the competition with more punitive bureaucratic nightmare.

It only when China, India and the US do something about their carbon emissions that there is any hope for a benefit to the world. Small countries like the UK contribute minimally to any emmission problem and when our cherished politicians come up with ideas which involve the word "tax" we can be sure that all they have in mind is to fleece us further.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
One of the somewhat unwelcome things we have to face is that we will have to change our lifestyles. If we believe that global warming is a) real and b) caused by humans then some sort of change in how we behave is essential. The question becomes, what's the best way of achieving the necessary changes (and what the changes need to be). Cheap air travel like this is clearly unsustainable, as you say. At the very least aviation fuel should be taxed at the same rate as other fuel, so that the playing field is level to that extent.

Your comparison with train travel is a reasonable question, why on earth is there such a price difference? Though I would note that you can often get cheap train tickets too if you book in advance - I've certainly done Manchester London for £18 (and you arrive in central London, not miles away). If you're going to compare you should use the equivalents ie cheapest vs cheapest or typical vs typical - you've used cheapest vs most expensive which is scarcely fair!

I would agree that simply pricing cheap flights out of existence is not the way to go. It only works as an environmental strategy if the money raised is used to promote positive actions. Also, given that people do have the need to travel and aren't going to give it up in the near future, money needs to be put into making greener transport better and cheaper. In the UK I would renationalise the railways so they can be run coherently and with the public in mind, not railway company profits. I would tax aviation fuel at a fair level, and ban further airport expansion. I would invest in good, fast train and tram links. I would, if necessary, subsidise railways. I woudl certainly fund research into making renewable energy more cost effective and efficient, if this was used to power public transport (and it is feasible for trains at least, if not buses as yet) then one problem would be solved.

I am uneasy about the 'we're only small, it's not up to us' argument.

Firstly, it's essential that everyone takes appropriate action. The richest countries use the most resources, emit the most CO2 and create the most problems. The UK emits far more than its 'fair share' per head of population. At the least we should reduce our contribution to the problem to a fair share.

Why shouldn't the UK take a lead in this area? Someone has to - let's be positive and proactive. Being selfish, there are great economic rewards for the countries which develop green technologies (which are part of the solution, though not all of it).

I agree though, that taxes alone are not the only solution - there is a mixture of actions governments need to take. And I agree that politicians are usually overkeen to tax. If they just use this to raise money or discourage people from doing particular things, it's not good enough (apart from anything else, it's inequitable as it stops poor people doing them, but not richer people).

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
JonahMan
Shipmate
# 12126

 - Posted      Profile for JonahMan   Email JonahMan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MerlintheMad said
quote:

Many doubt that thousands of scientists could be in cahoots with the U. N. in a conspiratorial power grab. But it isn't the information which is conspiratorial; it is the way it is being taken advantage of. Scientists that discovered nuclear power did not want the Bomb. And scientists who forecast doom if we continue on our present way of life most likely do not want greater governmental controls to become abusive; but the fear of that is not going to make them shut up. The U. N. powers will take the veracity of scientific consensus and twist it to gain advantages on the United States. That isn't being "hysterical." It is being realistic....

OK, I see what you are saying - but I fail to see any evidence for your viewpoint. What makes you think your viewpoint is 'realistic'? Equally there is no evidence against it, but it is hard to prove a negative.

However I would point out that the most powerful country in the UN is the USA. If the USA decides not to go along with what the rest of the world, it doesn't. Which UN powers do you mean in your comment about twisting the scientific concensus? And how would this work? The scientists (which includes many Americans) would be the first to complain if their findings were misrepresented.

If you don't think the UN (which comes to decisions democratically, as far as I am aware) should make decisions for the US, could you outline how you think the US should reduce its CO2 emissions to a sustainable level (at which they don't cause climate change)? I'd be interested to hear your suggestions.

Jonah

--------------------
Thank God for the aged
And old age itself, and illness and the grave
For when you're old, or ill and particularly in the coffin
It's no trouble to behave

Posts: 914 | From: Planet Zog | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As an addition to JonahMan's comments to MerlintheMad - if the UN is one big realistic conspiracy to do-in the US out of sheer bloody-minded envy, why do the current US administration say that the science is now "beyond doubt" with regard to climate change? Is the Bush administration now a bunch of pinko lefty wimps or something? You're gonna need a REALLY right wing government to stand up to the evil, envious UN now! There's something for the world to look forward too...
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Low cost airlines are a joy to the modern traveler. My wife, who is Irish, can visit her folks in the West of Ireland every 2-3 months for a hopover, because, if you book in advance, the flights can cost from 99 pence to £5.99 plus taxes. Its possible to fly from London to Edinburgh for less than £20.

That's not a low-cost airline, that's an airline with a pricing policy that offers a few absurdly cheap seats at a loss and a whole lot more seats at realistic prices. I'm quite certain that the actual operating cost per passenger per flight is a bit higher than 99p. It's actually the other passengers who paid for most of the cost of your wife's flight because they didn't book in advance / don't want to stay Saturday night / whatever. OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
That's not a low-cost airline, that's an airline with a pricing policy that offers a few absurdly cheap seats at a loss and a whole lot more seats at realistic prices. I'm quite certain that the actual operating cost per passenger per flight is a bit higher than 99p.

Paul could have been referring to what we call 'no frills' airlines here: they do short haul flights for very low cost. They make savings by flying out of our smaller airports, they don't include meals in the cost (you take your own sandwiches/buy something on board), etc. It's perfectly possible to fly for a ridiculous price to Europe, the cheapest flights usually happening during the night/very early morning. Ryanair is one example. They seriously undercut the major airlines on routes to Europe. I think they've been a blessing for people who aren't well off but who want to catch some sun for their vacation.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Noiseboy:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Hopefully, as the world in general becomes more prosperous, people will be able to have a great life where they live, and not have to move to America anymore to get it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not quite sure I get where you are coming from, MerlintheMad (except America, obviously!) Are you suggesting that the American Way Of Life (TM) is the way that the rest of the world should aspire to?

Yes. The amount of freedom (only more so, as we have some regaining of our liberty to attend to). The good life. But at the same time, we all need to be conservationists. The energy we power our lifestyle with must be clean and non destructive. The materials we use to manufacture most of our goods must be reusable: and the balance that we take which is natural (e.g. wood), must be less than the natural resources we get it from.

I don't think we are that far off from being largely this way, world-wide. It seems like we have a huge amount of changing to do, but really, it is dependant on cooperation and shared vision more than anything else. And forums like this one, in their multiples of thousands and increasing all the time, encourage me to believe that this century is seeing the birth of a united world: and it will be largely a freedom loving one.

quote:
JonahMan:

MerlintheMad said
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many doubt that thousands of scientists could be in cahoots with the U. N. in a conspiratorial power grab. But it isn't the information which is conspiratorial; it is the way it is being taken advantage of. Scientists that discovered nuclear power did not want the Bomb. And scientists who forecast doom if we continue on our present way of life most likely do not want greater governmental controls to become abusive; but the fear of that is not going to make them shut up. The U. N. powers will take the veracity of scientific consensus and twist it to gain advantages on the United States. That isn't being "hysterical." It is being realistic....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, I see what you are saying - but I fail to see any evidence for your viewpoint. What makes you think your viewpoint is 'realistic'? Equally there is no evidence against it, but it is hard to prove a negative.


quote:
Noiseboy:

As an addition to JonahMan's comments to MerlintheMad - if the UN is one big realistic conspiracy to do-in the US out of sheer bloody-minded envy, why do the current US administration say that the science is now "beyond doubt" with regard to climate change? Is the Bush administration now a bunch of pinko lefty wimps or something? You're gonna need a REALLY right wing government to stand up to the evil, envious UN now! There's something for the world to look forward too...

Denying the evidence of human contribution to global warming: and denying the main U. N. attitude toward the U. S. of A., are two different things. The Bush admin admit (I like that), they admit that global warming is a scientific fact. At the same time, they won't play along with the Kyoto Accords, et al., because they deliberately target us and take and don't give anything back. The "evil" that America does is a constant litany from most U. N. spokespersons. At the same time, they are more than willing to have us continue to send food and other stuff to help them out. So in effect, they are demanding that the American people agree to become like they are (reduce their ecological footprint a lot), and yet the US government is supposed to continue to send the aid to the countries that need it. So they cook up stupid ideas like "carbon dept", and expect it to fly with Americans.

There isn't a secret conspiracy going on here. No meetings between the majority of U. N. members behind closed doors, to plot the downfall of the U. S. of A. They simply agree, without saying a word to each other, that America is too big, too rich, too powerful, too scary, to take us as we are. Kids on the same block don't have to talk to each other, to all be in silent agreement about the bully. And sadly, lately, America has thrown her weight around sort of like a bully. That hasn't helped the situation, the trust, at all. We have some air to clear, before the U. N. can get on with the real business of addressing what to do to meet the changing climate of the future.

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Cheers MerlintheMad, that helps a lot, actually.

So the issue comes down to what to do, rather than the view of ACC per se. It should be noted, however, that the US are really very recent converts to accepting the science - The Kyoto treaty was from an age before this. Well, the Clinton administration went with it, but as we all know Dubya had a different view. So the view of Kyoto might well be different now - the US opposed it partly because they did not agree with the consensus view on ACC.

There is also the issue of what the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans is that you cherish. You value conservation, which is great, so clearly you don't advocate the wastefulness that is inherant in the contemporary US way of life. So what is wrong with Europe, from your perspective, that America betters?

Also, I'd like to make the point that America sees itself as the world's policemen, and how we (the world) wants it to be. Well, I don't. I don't want America to unilaterally invade countries when they feel like it. If any invading really has to be done, it is the job of the UN, and no other country. Including the US. I'd guess that this view is shared by the UN and most of its member countries.

Anyway, hopefully the US will have a more constructive role in the negotiations for the replacement of Kyoto. Blair has said he is optimistic on this - let's wait and see (and pray!)

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The amount of freedom ... The good life.

And if everyone agreed on what the good life is, and exactly how to balance personal freedom with responsibility and the rights of others, that might mean something. News flash: Not everyone all over the world wants the same kinds of "freedoms" or the same kind of "good life". And in case you weren't aware, sometimes Americans move to other countries and discover they are really happy with their life outside the USA.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I don't think we are that far off from being largely this way, world-wide. It seems like we have a huge amount of changing to do, but really, it is dependant on cooperation and shared vision more than anything else.

(italics mine)
Based on its recent record, it doesn't appear the US is interested in being a role model for international / global cooperation and shared vision. Kyoto? International Criminal Court? Ottawa Treaty? "You're with us or you're against us"? UN arrears? OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Noiseboy:

There is also the issue of what the fundamental difference between Europeans and Americans is that you cherish. You value conservation, which is great, so clearly you don't advocate the wastefulness that is inherant in the contemporary US way of life. So what is wrong with Europe, from your perspective, that America betters?

European nations have a legacy of control that was deliberately excised out of our system of government in the beginning. So individual liberty (a lack of "cradle to grave" socialistic care mentality) is the fundamental difference that I value the most.

America has a policy of allowing other nations the same privilege, even if they don't exercise it: it isn't our job to make them behave inside their own borders as we would prefer. That is the main beef Americans have with the U. N. It threatens to take over the world and institute a U. N. "constitution" binding all nations to the same international laws, making the world one empire. That sort of direction must stop. Americans will not sell our Consitution out for some U. N. superiority. The E. U. is a good thing, as long as each nation retains its sovereignty. Our ranks are currently divided on this perspective: far too many Americans don't appreciate what national sovereignty means in a united world government.

quote:
Also, I'd like to make the point that America sees itself as the world's policemen, and how we (the world) wants it to be. Well, I don't. I don't want America to unilaterally invade countries when they feel like it. If any invading really has to be done, it is the job of the UN, and no other country. Including the US. I'd guess that this view is shared by the UN and most of its member countries.

Anyway, hopefully the US will have a more constructive role in the negotiations for the replacement of Kyoto. Blair has said he is optimistic on this - let's wait and see (and pray!)

Surely, when Bush and his admin decided to invade Iraq, I was aghast at the way it happened. The U. N. balked, and we said that Britain and the U. S. of A. would do it then. That was dividing the U. N. Part of it supported the invasion, the rest didn't. It all has rather the feel of early US division of the States; this resulted in Civil War, and even today we feel echoes of that division. Nothing is perfect!

To meet climate change, it will take a united effort of all nations, a U. N., not a divided one. We do indeed need to pray, and work hard, and not be selfish....

Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898

 - Posted      Profile for New Yorker   Email New Yorker   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
1. I still think the global warming scare campaign is a plot to destroy America. Nothing more. Nothing less. (That does not mean I deny global warming.)

2. What really creeps me are the calls starting to be heard to criminalize those who deny it. Proves that the eco-leftists are the new Nazis.

Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959

 - Posted      Profile for tclune   Email tclune   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
2. What really creeps me are the calls starting to be heard to criminalize those who deny it. Proves that the eco-leftists are the new Nazis.

If that creeps you out, why not stop listening to whack-o right-wing talk radio that says that it is happening?

--Tom Clune

--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.

Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881

 - Posted      Profile for Soror Magna   Email Soror Magna   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
That is the main beef Americans have with the U. N. It threatens to take over the world and institute a U. N. "constitution" binding all nations to the same international laws, making the world one empire.

Which is why I have lined my hoodie with aluminum foil, so the UN cannot monitor my thought waves.
quote:
Surely, when Bush and his admin decided to invade Iraq, I was aghast at the way it happened. The U. N. balked, and we said that Britain and the U. S. of A. would do it then. That was dividing the U. N. Part of it supported the invasion, the rest didn't.
So any country that doesn't go along with whatever the USA - oh, sorry, cooperate with a shared vision - is being divisive?
quote:

To meet climate change, it will take a united effort of all nations, a U. N., not a divided one. We do indeed need to pray, and work hard, and not be selfish....

MerlintheMad, is there any evidence that the US - a country fixated on individual liberty and national sovereignty - is culturally or politically ready to sacrifice some of that liberty and sovereignty in order cooperate internationally on this (or any) issue? OliviaG

--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"

Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320

 - Posted      Profile for PaulTH*   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I'm quite certain that the actual operating cost per passenger per flight is a bit higher than 99p. It's actually the other passengers who paid for most of the cost of your wife's flight because they didn't book in advance / don't want to stay Saturday night / whatever. OliviaG

Dear OliviaG

You may well be right, but you're missing the point. Someone who wants to travel frequently from London to the West of Ireland will pick and choose times when they can go for next to nothing. This has been made possible by the no frills airlines, mainly Ryanair ans easy jet. I go to Italy most years as I have family there. 20 years ago I paid £200 pounds for a ticket. Nowadays if I book at the right time the total cost comes to no more than £50.

My point is that these airlines have revolutionised travel and made it accessible to people who could never have afforded it before. Good on them. They broke the monopoly of the price fixing cartels of the established national airlines such as BA, Alitalia and Aer Lingus. Internal air travel within the US has always been relatively cheap and where is the morality in paying more for a flight from London to Milan than a flight from New York to San Francisco?

For the government to tax away these freedoms which took so long in coming is immoral. And I reiterate my point that on a small island like Britain, it would be much more sensible to take a train rather than fly, especially for the environment. But its a no brainer whether anyone is going to pay £200 return from London to Edinburgh when they can fly both ways for £50. Instead of taxing away the airlines the government should concentrate on pressurising the train operators to offer competitive fares.

--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul

Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279

 - Posted      Profile for MerlintheMad         Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
OliviaG:

MerlintheMad quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To meet climate change, it will take a united effort of all nations, a U. N., not a divided one. We do indeed need to pray, and work hard, and not be selfish....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MerlintheMad, is there any evidence that the US - a country fixated on individual liberty and national sovereignty - is culturally or politically ready to sacrifice some of that liberty and sovereignty in order cooperate internationally on this (or any) issue? OliviaG

Is there any reason why the US should sacrifice any of that which we believe is what made us "top nation?" That would be stupid. That does not mean that we can't work toward the common good. Perhaps other nations need to increase their prosperity by giving up some of their oligarchy: because that is how the US got great in the first place: by holding as few controls over free commerce and ownership of property as necessary to make the general peace and national defense hold up. The strength of the nation came from within. It was not imposed by controls from the top down. That is a lesson the American people often do not appreciate themselves. But it is the lesson which, if the U. N. were to follow the same path in its relationship with the nations of the earth, would produce a similar realtionship which the federal government holds over the states in the US: where the sovereign states govern within their borders the fed has no say; where the states must interact with each other or the whole, the fed exercises the controls. On a planetary scale, the U. N. would not control a sovereign nation within its borders, but would hold authority to impose sanctions and membership requirements upon that nation. This approach is what the US as top U. N. member has tried to inculcate into the general body of member nations. It has had frustrating results, i.e. gone nowhere in the main. Perhaps we need more time. Perhaps too many people are losing patience. And perhaps this global crisis of impending doom from the changing climate is increasing that impatience: and allowing too much credence to those voices who advocate quick, expedient measures, which ride roughshod over national interests. That should not happen.
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007  |  IP: Logged
Mr Clingford
Shipmate
# 7961

 - Posted      Profile for Mr Clingford   Email Mr Clingford   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
Is there any reason why the US should sacrifice any of that which we believe is what made us "top nation?" That would be stupid.

How about because that which you believe includes a lifestyle that is unsustainable and would consume the planet?

To New Yorker - are you serious?

--------------------
Ne'er cast a clout till May be out.

If only.

Posts: 1660 | From: A Fleeting moment | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
MerlintheMad - there does seem to be a bit of circular logic here. The US has the most unsustainable carbon emissions, per person, by a mile. Carbon emissions (and other greenhouse gasses) cause global warming, so these need to be reduced. Since America has the worst record, it logically has the biggest challenge. If you predetermine that there is a UN hatred of America (and I'd agree to a point because of how abysmally America has behaved with not a shred of contrition in the light of the horrific events), how should the UN require America - and every other nation - to reduce their CO2 output?

I think the fear of the UN taking over the planet is (largely) a paranoid American one. Here in the UK, we've had the same fears peddled at us regarding the EU for a couple of decades, but everyone is thoroughly bored of it now, especially since European nations rejected a charter of closer harmonisation. There seems to me no evidence that a global government is wanted on a significant scale, still less acheivable (the US? China? North Korea? Really?!!). As an excuse to avoid responisibily on global warming, it seems paper thin.

However, I very much welcome your sentiment, MerlintheMad, regarding new efforts to get emissions down. Hopefully as better dialogue emerges between the US and the UN, some of these unfounded fears between Americans and the UN will be put to rest.

On a general point - it's interesting that the vast majority of people here now apparently accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So far on this thread, there has been very little attempt to challenge this.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
For the government to tax away these freedoms which took so long in coming is immoral. And I reiterate my point that on a small island like Britain, it would be much more sensible to take a train rather than fly, especially for the environment. But its a no brainer whether anyone is going to pay £200 return from London to Edinburgh when they can fly both ways for £50. Instead of taxing away the airlines the government should concentrate on pressurising the train operators to offer competitive fares.

PaulTH (and anyone else interested) - I've replied to this on the "Is our energy use sustainable" thread as it looks off topic here to me.
Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
On a general point - it's interesting that the vast majority of people here now apparently accept the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So far on this thread, there has been very little attempt to challenge this.

That may be because this is the third thread on the subject in recent days. Those of us skeptical of humanity being the reason for climate change have said what we had to say already. No point in saying it all again just coz you started a new thread about it.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Fair enough, Littlelady! Just to clarify, putting the thread here was an attempt to free up the others to discuss what they are actually meant to be about.

Anyone got any arguments that they could summarise or repost here for clarity?

[ 10. February 2007, 09:00: Message edited by: Noiseboy ]

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In this week's science [Disappointed] , cosmic rays may be play a larger role in GW than CO2 emissions:

quote:
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

Link.

And this just in from The Economist on the IPCC report:

quote:
As understanding grows, predications may become less, rather than more, certain. Thus the IPCC's range of predictions of the rise of temperature by 2100 has increased from 1.4-2.5°C in the 2001 report to 1.1-6.4°C in this report... [this leaves] plenty of scope for argument about whether it is worth trying to do anything about climate change.


--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Clint Boggis
Shipmate
# 633

 - Posted      Profile for Clint Boggis   Author's homepage   Email Clint Boggis   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't be bothered to read what the Telegraph or the Econimist opinions are on the matter. Or their reports of "controversial new research". Was it peer reviewed by people who actually know? Or is that why it's labelled controversial?

Can someone who can be bothered say whether it's worth the time to read it (or just the last failing attempts of the terminally unconvinved to regain some shreds of credibility) ?

Actual studies by real, unbiased scientists are worth paying attention to.
.

Posts: 1505 | From: south coast | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Eutychus - on the Telegraph article, I'm not quite sure what is new here, apart from the controversial author, Svensmark, having a book out. He published a paper on this in 1998, and another last year. The community of climate scientists seem extremely unimpressed, pointing to seemingly fatal flaws in the theory as regarding such a large effect. Solar activity is known to affect the climate, and the IPCC included its effects in its findings. Svensmark (and others) are mavericks with a book to sell - maybe he is right, but the vast majority of scientists do not apparently think so. For more on this from climate scientists (rather than the Telegraph), try this link.

The Economist's quote seems mad - so manifestly wrong it hardly dignifies a response, but in brief the range of possibilities considered by the IPCC has actually narrowed in the past 5 years. Further, the IPCC has actually disregarded many other positive feedback effects that would make all scenrios worse, since the science is still too young to be accepted as consensus. Many reputable bodies, such as the British Antarctic Survey for example, are very unhappy that they have been so conservative, but I guess it is a price to pay for such a solid consensus. The Economist appear to simply be making stuff up - I've no idea how they can arrive at those figures without massively misinterpreting the reports.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Littlelady
Shipmate
# 9616

 - Posted      Profile for Littlelady     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
unbiased scientists

No such thing. It's a question of choosing your bias.

--------------------
'When ideas fail, words come in very handy' ~ Goethe

Posts: 3737 | From: home of the best Rugby League team in the universe | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
The Economist's quote seems mad - so manifestly wrong it hardly dignifies a response, but in brief the range of possibilities considered by the IPCC has actually narrowed in the past 5 years. [...] The Economist appear to simply be making stuff up - I've no idea how they can arrive at those figures without massively misinterpreting the reports.

I believe the quote from the Economist is based on table SPM-3 (which does give a likely range of 1.1°C-6.4°C for temperature change to 2100) and this passage from the latest IPCC Summary for Policy Makers :
quote:
Best estimates and likely ranges for globally average surface air warming for six SRES emissions marker scenarios are given in this assessment and are shown in Table SPM-3. [...] Although these projections are broadly consistent with the span quoted in the TAR (1.4 to 5.8°C), they are not directly comparable (see Figure SPM-5). The AR4 is more advanced as it provides best estimates and an assessed likelihood range for each of the marker scenarios. The new assessment of the likely ranges now relies on a larger number of climate models of increasing complexity and realism, as well as new information regarding the nature of feedbacks from the carbon cycle and constraints on climate response from observations.

So not "mad" or "making stuff up." Though the SPM does say that the ranges "are not directly comparable" their explanation isn't exactly a model of clarity - perhaps a better one will be included in the full report to be released in May.

It may be worth noting a few additional points:
  • The quoted ranges cover six scenarios with widely varying assumptions about future GHG emissions associated with different possible future demographic and technological developments. These are things that can't really be "predicted" by climate scientists, and the variation from looking at different scenarios shouldn't be interpreted as uncertainty in the underlying science.
  • For a given scenario, the range is smaller than for all scenarios taken together (of course), but varies depending on the emission levels assumed. For example, the most environmentally friendly scenario has a predicted temperature rise of 1.1 to 2.9 (most likely 1.8), while the least friendly predicts 2.4 to 6.4 (most likely 4.0).
  • I think Eutychus' quote from the Economist may give an inaccurate impression of the content of the entire article. The Economist accepts the reality of AGW and doesn't raise doubts about the new IPCC report. I think a slightly longer quote of the end of the article would give a better flavor:

    quote:
    So, as understanding grows, predictions may become less, rather than more, certain. Thus the IPCC's range of predictions of the rise in the temperature by 2100 has increased from 1.4-5.8°C in the 2001 report to 1.1-6.4°C in this report.

    That the IPCC should end up with a range that vast is not surprising given the climate's complexity. But it does leave plenty of scope for argument about whether it is worth trying to do anything about climate change.


Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I think Eutychus' quote from the Economist may give an inaccurate impression of the content of the entire article. The Economist accepts the reality of AGW and doesn't raise doubts about the new IPCC report.



I didn't mean to conceal that. My point was that they appear to conclude that given the range in the scenarios, it's difficult to know if it's economically worth trying to do anything about climate change.

I actually started to post on another of the multiple threads and then decided this one was the most appropriate. I may have been mistaken.

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Noiseboy
Shipmate
# 11982

 - Posted      Profile for Noiseboy   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
My point was that they appear to conclude that given the range in the scenarios, it's difficult to know if it's economically worth trying to do anything about climate change.

I actually started to post on another of the multiple threads and then decided this one was the most appropriate. I may have been mistaken.

This would seem like the best thread to me.

The Economist has not interpreted the report as the scientific community has. The latest report has been able to narrow the range, although they cannot rule out more extreme positions, these are thought very unlikely (although there is a wide body of scientific opinion which consider the high end figure conservate due to the possibility of positive feedbacks). I think the received wisdom is that closest comparison is between the two "most likely" figures - in the TAR this was 1.4-5.8, wheras the FAR is has been narrowed to 1.8-4.0.

A 1.8 degree rise - the most likely best-case scenario - is a very serious problem, hence the need for policy makers to address the issue. The likelihood of a scenario as low as 1.1 - still moderately serious - is very slim.

Posts: 512 | From: Tonbridge | Registered: Oct 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765

 - Posted      Profile for Dave W.   Email Dave W.   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Noiseboy:
I think the received wisdom is that closest comparison is between the two "most likely" figures - in the TAR this was 1.4-5.8, wheras the FAR is has been narrowed to 1.8-4.0.

As in the case of the full span of "likely range" numbers from the new SPM (1.1-6.4), I don't think there are numbers from the TAR that can be directly compared with the new "best estimate" numbers (1.8-4.0).

According to the new SPM, the estimates and ranges "are assessed from a hierarchy of models that encompass a simple climate model, several Earth Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs), and a large number of Atmosphere-Ocean Global Circulaion Models (AOGCMs)." In the TAR, they weren't as sophisticated - for each of the six emissions scenarios, they ran a simple model seven times, each time tuning it to reflect the behavior of a different AOGCM. Then they reported the range of the seven results, as well as the simple average. The closest TAR comparison to the new "best estimate" span (1.8-4.0) is probably the span of those averages, which was 2.0-4.5. (See text and figure 9.14 from this page of the TAR.)

I expect there will be a more complete discussion of the improvements in understanding of the ranges of uncertainty in the full report due out in May.

More directly to the main thread topic - I've found the IPCC reports pretty convincing on the reality of AGW, what with the measurements of atmospheric temperature and CO2 increases, the isotopic content of the CO2, and the long-understood role of CO2 as a GHG. But I claim no expertise, and sometimes suspect I'm overly pessimistic about many things. So perhaps even more convincing have been reports (in such publications as the Economist) of serious concerns expressed by ... insurance companies. It's their business to assess risks with an unsentimental eye, and I figure that, unlike scientists, they can't have any personal or professional investment in the correctness of one theory over another.

Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this week's science [Disappointed] , cosmic rays may be play a larger role in GW than CO2 emissions:

quote:
Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth's climate than global warming experts previously thought.

Link.

Just to follow up this point, partly in response to questions from Clint Boggis and responses from Noiseboy.

The research in question is only labelled "contraversial" by the media, because it makes it seem more newsworthy. And, only then because it seemingly contradicts the recent IPCC report (personally, there seems to be less of a contradiction than the editors of certain newspapers seem to want to imply).

As I understand it from what I've read, the research (which is all published in peer reviewed journals and would have been available to the IPCC, and for all I know is referenced in the full report that's not yet available online) basically follows the following line:

  1. Cosmic rays generate cascades of ionised particles in the atmosphere (nothing contraversial there, the earliest particle physics experiments in the early 20th century basically studied and used these same particle cascades).
  2. These charged particle cascades in theory could form the nucleation sites for cloud formation. This is one point of contention - it's known that in air with lots of water vapour charged particles form nucleation sites, it's how bubble chambers work for detecting and tracking charged particles (not that they're really ever used any more outwith teaching), but it's not clear whether this occurs in the thin and relatively dry upper atmosphere. There are some experiments currently under way at particle accelerators to see if, and if so at what rate, charged particles create nucleation sites in such atmospheres.
  3. It's well known that clouds in the upper atmosphere reduce global warming by reflecting sunlight back into space before it has a chance to heat the lower atmosphere. Clouds at lower altitudes have both cooling (by reflecting sunlight) and warming (by "blanketing" the lower atmosphere) effects.
  4. If cosmic rays cause some cloud formation it would presumably happen throughout the atmosphere, but the effect would be negligable at lower altitudes where there are loads of nucleation sites available anyway. So, only the upper atmosphere clouds would be important, where the clouds would cool the earth.
  5. Cosmic ray influx depends, in part, on the strength of the solar magnetic field and how it interacts with the earth. We do actually have some pretty decent measurements of the historic changes in the cosmic ray influx from cosmogenic isotope production rates (principally 14C) ... but, 14C concentrations are anthropologically influenced by the influx of fossil carbon from burning fossil fuels, and since 1950s from the influx on non-cosmogenic 14C through nuclear industry and weapons testing so the record on cosmic ray influx for the last 2-300 years is fairly poor (though, there are other less ideal records in ice cores and other cosmogenic isotopes like 32Si).
  6. The thesis is that over the last couple of centuries the cosmic ray influx has dropped, reducing stratospheric cloud formation and allowing more sunlight to reach the lower atmosphere, hence contributing to global warming.
The problems I see are that it depends on some speculation, that may be well-founded but not yet clearly demonstrated.

First, that cosmic rays cause stratospheric cloud formation (my money is that they probably do, given that cloud chambers work). Second, that they cause a significant amount of stratospheric cloud formation (in this case, my money is that they probably don't as there are several other methods of stratospheric cloud formation), because if the clouds they form are only a small proportion of all stratospheric clouds then any variation in cosmic-ray produced clouds will have very small effects if all else is equal. And, finally it requires there to have been a significant reduction in cosmic-ray influx (which, though there appears to have been a reduction it doesn't seem to be that great).

And, of course, the researchers in question aren't doubting anthropogenic climate change. Just that they have a potential natural mechanism to account for a small proportion of recent global warming.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  ...  13  14  15 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools