Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
not something I know a lot about, just wondering.
like the holocaust, but forgive me for not selling my V8 SUV just yet
Might just be natural - earth gets hotter, earth gets colder.
Seems like it might just be invented so people can make money.
Either way I'll be in my cold, cold grave by the time anything bad happens. Anyway, all the clever people in the future will be able to sort it out before it does.
definitely a 'global warming' sceptic though.
global warming is a certain branch of climate change theory.
as he felt it was a less-scary alternative to Global Warming.
The phrases both existed at the same time and global warming will cause climate change (some areas will get hotter as a result, some areas will get colder).
It may get warmer, but it may get colder. Weather will become more unpredictable
Global warming is a term that was used in the past when Co2 level rise was associated with the greenhouse effect.
Science has since hypothesised that CO2 level rises may have different impacts in different parts of the world
Climate change reflects what will happen on a localised level as a result of global warming.
apparently leads to more extremes. I think the term global warming still works
The climate's clearly changing and only Republicans/Cretins don't recognise that.
The key issue for debate is how much we're accelerating that change and whether we'll make the planet uninhabitable.
Doesn't mean I agree with the way natural resources are monopolised and consumed by big money though.
Basically, yet again, bloody capitalism grrrr.
Think the reason i'm skeptical a lot of the time with popular environmentalism is because its ideal world is one where tesco only stocks fair trade organic food.
I Want To Fight Someone
but apparently the number is growing rapidly (why?) and our Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, and Peter Lilley are apparently quite open about it, something seems to have shifted while i was busy paying no attention.
Peter Lilley's wikipedia page:
2.1 Oil Interests
2.2 Controversy and Climate Change
Her behind-the-scenes incentivising of pushing global warming, and the subsequent revealing of that agenda, has made some people freak out.
Also the arctic guys finding ice patterns that suggest warming/cooling has been cyclical.
All of that is silly as serious fuck. But that explains some of the irrational paranoia.
was that the 'loony fringe' got into government
p. much everyone i know who looks at this stuff for a living is confident that there is climate change that is caused by large scale industrial process, and that's enough for me
Sceptical that human beings are at least partly responsible? – Nah
Sceptical that the above is apocalyptic – Yeah, quite probably
However, I’ve never understood why people are against the aggressive introduction of renewables. In the long run they’ll be cheaper, more reliable, and won’t run out (by definition). I’d much rather that my Playstation cost more to run Skyrim for the next ten years and we get sorted out, than find we have to bend over for Russia/China/whomever in the not too distant future.
In fact I’d go as far as to say I don’t give a shit about the environment, and we should be investing in renewables in order to retain geopolitical power.
I can strongly relate to your first three lines, as do a lot of my professional geology colleagues. It isn't clear cut.
Being a strident denier or sceptic is unhelpful and the 'anti' evidence is sometimes no stronger than the 'pro' evidence. Read Andrew Montford's 'The Hockey Stick Illusion' to get a well written view on the evidence that underpins a lot of the IPCC reports and then engage with his blog: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/
If after doing that and then monitoring all the pro-warming news coverage you can reach a strong opinion either way, you're a better man than I am.
Shirley being environmentally conscious and not doing too much pollution is a good thing anyway
It's completely wrong to do so, but it just irritates me on multiple levels. Not the "I'm not sure crowd" to be clear - those that talk with utter conviction that it's a "hoax" or "tree huggers" or whatever.
For one thing, it isn't based on anything - I don't KNOW that the earth is warming anymore than they know it isn't, but I choose to base my choice on trusting people who do know about such things and spend their time studying it.
Bottom line is - even if you think it's a load of old granny cock that the sea is going to rise and swallow us all, it would still be a great idea to move away from fossil fuels and move to something more sustainable, stop polluting the environment etc. anyway.
"It's not about the science, it never was"
They're deliberately trying to ensure that millions, perhaps billions of people suffer.
but if 97% of all climatologists agree that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans, then I'm inclined to believe what the experts who know about it say.
Even if you choose to ignore all the evidence though, I still don't understand why you'd still object to the idea of developing long-term, renewable energy sources that don't use up natural resources and don't make us dependent on overseas countries. This also applies to non-energy sources too - rare metals, land, water, food etc etc. Firstly, it surely makes long term financial sense, and secondly, it makes us able to be independent of any economic/geo-political fluctuations.
I genuinely don't understand how short-termist/selfish/stupid (delete as appropriate) you'd have to be to not advocate the research and development of viable renewable sources.
and waste to energy plants and wind farms look hacket.
but they don't seem to take up as much land and are usually kept well away from resi areas.
but I think you've agreed with me there. NIMBYs are short-termist/selfish/stupid (delete as appropriate).
we agreed, yay! (You are virtually always right so I like it when I can agree with you.)
Also, I think wind farms look beautiful. It's a shame more people can't see them as urban architecture.
hacket means ugly.
I don't understand why people cry so much about windfarms. they're lush.
A combination of wind and solar will be needed, but tidal barrages should probably be what we should be looking towards in this country.
saying that Europe's largest (I think) tidal energy project had been approved for somewhere off the Scottish coast over the next decade.
I know next to nothing about tidal power, but I get quite excited by these kind of projects.
(I did the corporate partnering and funding aspects of the consortium that did the one between scotland and Ireland- many years ago though and we've come a long wasy since then).
They need heavy subsidy to be profitable and their energy generation is poor relative to fossil fuels
The first generation ones were break even models, if that.
is that it reminds me that when people are in a weak position in an argument, they fall back on the notion that everything is just an opinion to create a false debate that stalls for time. And it works.
Tobacco industry, climate change deniers, big business defenders of all types, people who believe in Intelligent design, line up. These people who have literally no argument except to cause fear of societal breakdown (the cash machine won't work, the lights will go out, THEY will come and get YOU, You will go to Hell), and to suggest everything is just a matter of opinion, with no right or wrong answer.
But there is no way to sustain those positions forever. Society does tend to call bullshit occasionally, and we gradually move forward. That it takes so long because dickheads are in the way, saying "Weh weh weh, It's an opinion, weh weh weh, bad things will happen!" is a shame, but it is what it is.
[WAKE UP SHEEPLE, etc, etc]
15 denier on the subject
Seams up the back?
don't get me wrong, you may as well do it, it's not hurting anyone. but there are other ways you could make an actual, real difference. except people don't want to stop eating meat and having babies, so they won't.
Humanity has largely lost its fear of hellfire, and yet we still hunger for a structure, a point, an eschatology, a moral counterbalance to our growing prosperity. All that is brilliantly supplied by climate change. Like all the best religions, fear of climate change satisfies our need for guilt, and self-disgust, and that eternal human sense that technological progress must be punished by the gods. And the fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful.
Not my words, the words of Boris Johnson...
*Climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful.*
He's not really this thick is he? Which makes it much, much more annoying
but the measures most people would be willing to take, i.e. recycling your yoghurt pots and using bags for life, will have absolutely no effect whatsoever
when I say I don't want to agree I actually mean I don't agree
not sure this has helped
So I'm quite happy to put my faith in Scientists who form their view on the evidence that they have.
pretty sceptical that anyhting can actually be done climate change about it now by the uk
but that's not because I don't think humans done it (they did done it)
Some good stuff in there. Especially the part where I agree with CG.
I'm guessing due to a banned user?
and its on one at the minute, the dinosaurs were living in this type of weather for instance, were they?. I dont think it means we should be gobbling up finite resources and pumping out toxic chemicals into the air WILLY NILLY though.
it's all about the rapidity of the change. Life on Earth has evolved in tune with the changing climates over it's history, but don't forget the abrupt climate changes in the past caused by feedback events that change greenhouse gases in the Earth system have caused huge global-scale extinctions. The change in temperature at such a fast rate over the last 50 years or so means that we are right now in a period of 'mass global extinction' by forcing species outside of their ecological capacities faster than they evolve (or the shrinking of an ecosystem 'island' such as moving up a mountain with the changing temperature).
that both sides in many cases have turned into conspiracy theorists. Many of the anti warming people think that it is all a ploy by politicians to raise taxes and build windfarms. The pro warming people think that the oil industry are in a huge conspiracy to deny that any warming is happening. As a natural hater of conspiracies I am kind of stuck. The truth is that we actually have bugger all clue what the fuck is going on and probably never will - there are so many factors involved that things could go any way. So lets just forget about it, drive cars and get drunk instead.
It's well within the interests of oil companies to undermine the consensus on man-made global warming, and this is embodied by the fact that almost every anti climate change action think tank is funded by energy firms or other forms of big business that are heavily reliant on fossil fuels.
"The truth is that we actually have bugger all clue what the fuck is going on and probably never will" - er, we do, and unfortunately we will.
I have seen threads go on for bloody months with both "sides" just turning it all into massive conspiracies. I think everyone else (me included) just left them to bicker amongst themselves. To be fair, the idea that every global government and scientific institution is in on some enourmous scam to fake global warming in order to tax us slightly more is a lot more absurd than an oil industry scam to try and make out like it isn't all man made. It is more about how each "side" (as in laymen on internet forums) have turned it into a conspiracy and hence left me just not giving a shit.
i.e. throw a bit uncertainty and doubt into the mix and wander away whistling with your hands in your pockets.
my answer is : "how the fuck should I know?" followed by "who should I care?"
Who would have something to gain? Solar panel manufacturers? I dunno.
The IPCC isn't a think thank.
not sure why you're reacting to the question that way. its important to consider vested interests in both sides of an arguement.
because he likes to try and be contrary.
I mean, I assume that it's because of that - he can't be that dim in real life.
discrediting scientific research on the basis of the (assumed) vested interests of those funding it?
then surely a consistent approach should be taken on all sides of a particular scientific debate?
there's REAL SCIENCE vs Big Oil, Clarkson, Lord Lawson and You
I'm just pointing out that the "vested interests" angle is inherently bollocks and biased.
theres a difference between being vehemently dismissive of climate change theory, and being cautious of how vested interests could push supposed solutions to the crisis?
Big business MUST have vested interests that MUST be evil, whereas august political and academic institutions and charities, if they even HAVE vested interests, are OBVIOUSLY totally altruistic in where they're coming from.
but to ignore the vested interests of those funding lobby groups/bodies/whatever on the other side is silly.
the wind-farm manufacturers et al pimping inappropriate solutions?
in play on any side of any political area of debate.
I therefore see calling out vested interests on one side as a pretty worthless gambit.
your character-targetting is what led to this sub-plot.
you guys win I guess.
and it's pretty obvious that he could have explained the situation himself, rather than trying to drag it out and wind people up.
It's a pretty classic and oft-seen way of diverting and shutting down the discussion on climate change, often employed by deniers.
why would I need to explain it?
at least compared to the billions put into climate change denial by Big Oil and the like.
Some of it comes from those who work for wind turbine manufacturers, some from solar panel manufacturers, but a lot of it comes from environmental charities like Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth, which are dependent on donations from the public.
the outcome of the climate change research they're funding.
Almost all of it comes from universities/governments.
I know you get a bit butt hurt when the right is shown to be anti-evidence and anti-intellectual, but there's no need to try and get all defensive and contrary about it. It's fine to admit that vast swathes of people on that side of the political spectrum are just simply wrong.
the ol' magster (aka t-miggle) was the UK's first proper spokesmanwoman on this issue, yo!
"A politically motivated, decades-long war on expertise has eroded the popular consensus on a wide variety of scientifically validated topics. Everything, from evolution to the origins of climate change, is mistakenly up for grabs again. Scientific certainty is just another thing for two people to "debate" on television. "
because I want to live in a future dystopia thick with yellow smog and carry a sword made of lazers to fight mutants.
levels of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere are now at higher levels than at any time during the last 800,000 years
...that higher carbon dioxide levels encourage plant growth. We're saved!
I'm a climate change scientist, and can count my presence here as public engagement I reckon.
and I'll listen. I don't mean with other non tree ring evidence, but in relationship to the manipulation (or presentation) of stats and the wisdom of drawing conclusions from data within the range of wide error bars...
if so, it was shown back in 2007 by Wahl that using a variety of statistical methods (including not using PCA at all) produced pretty much the same results as Mann got in 1998 (slight differences in the 1500s, but not enough to negate the statistical significance of warming, contrary to what was claimed by McIntyre). As for the error bars, they are bound to increase further back in time as the proxies become less precise. The agreement between all the proxy data means that we can be certain, despite the individual error bars of each proxy, that it was cooler during the whole of the last 1300 years than it is now. A cursory google of the book says it also ran the 'it's been warmer before' angle- The 'Medieval Warm Period' has been shown repeatedly to have been a localised event focused on the North Atlantic, and was globally insignificant compared to the recent anthropogenic warming. Also, we know why the MWP occurred (primarily reduced volcanic activity and increased circulation of warm water from the equator up to the North Atlantic) and these factors do not explain recent warming, which can only be explained (using models) by external forcing of the climate system through increased greenhouse gases
Been a good day for the IPCC launch so far, top news story most of the day on BBC, getting lots of airtime elsewhere. Most of the reporting has been reasonable (still a lot of journalists saying the 'hiatus' is 'difficult to explain', which it isn't), but other that that not bad. If anyone actually does want to know more about this area then I'll do my best to answer. My specialism is in adaptation but I'm up with current research across most of climate science.
and are there any jobs going? (srs)
... or live without electricity.
Renewables like solar power work a lot better with localised installations in this country (wind is a little less so - district schemes with large turbines work, small turbines on individual houses don't), and a shift to localised generation will happen as more demand is met with renewables.
It's also a useful way of breaking the monopolies/cartels enjoyed by the energy generators/distributors. For a while it did look like it might be something that was going to increase, but lobbying from the energy firms and this government cutting the feed-in tariffs have set it back about ten years.
but I automatically don't read anything that uses reaction gifs to make a point.
i was going to try to find some sort of good idea gif, but you know, couldn't be bothered
so fuck off clarkson et al
Owen Patterson, climate change denying environment minister says that global warming isn't all bad: less people will die of cold in the winter and we might be able to grow crops further north.
Strikes me as exactly the sort of chap who'd defect to UKip if he didn't have a cushy ministerial job
because you won't die of the cold and the first half hour as the oven warms up you'll be nice and cosy.