Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
But what do they know?
what does it all mean?
is east anglia safe from flooding now? will we get normal summers again?
feed the Daily Mail's everything gives you cancer campaign though?
in finding that climate change is real SHOCKER!
You used to be the boss at this this. Come on, champ. Pull your socks up, get out there, and start effectively annoying people again.
Running the country!
in describing the current consensus though. Think there's better ways to highlight harmful ways of thinking re: climate change than this poll and slightly dubious headline.
Be interesting to layer UKIP parliamentary candidates over this though - in particular the 3rd question... Think that's where the rump of climate change denial in politics would be.
It's only when you read articles about you you delve into how far climate-change deniers are incensed about anything that goes against their instinct that it's all a load of lefty hogwash (or whatever). Actually very, very chilling how grown adults behave about it.
As a further point to clarify the above, I don't think it's possible for anthropomorphic climate change to be `scientific fact`. It's how you behave/legislate within the grey area that matters (as opposed to asking people to identify which statement they believe is the most semantically accurate).
in your first paragraph and come to pretty much the same conclusion where you read. The consensus statement (97% I think it was) comes from a study that has been discredited by a number of the authors whose papers were cited as being part of the consensus.
You're right that the middle statement in the Telegraph article is the right one, but there are bona fide climate scientists who do not agree with the supposed 'consensus' (e.g. Prof Judith Curry) and others in the field of climate policy research who have commented on the validity of the 97% claim.
Ultimately it doesn't matter, we should be minimising our impacts wherever possible rather than arguing about who is right or wrong.
The vehemence of some levels of climate change denial is a different kettle of onions to `the scientific consensus` or similar.
Your last paragraph is the only one that really matters mind. Even if the second statement is the most accurate, we should all be acting as if it's the first. In my view. As I mentioned above, it's more helpful to analyse how people behave within the grey area, rather then inferring the grandiose from an identification with a statement.
on both sides of the argument - and unfortunately it's the rhetoric from both sides that tends to dominate the airwaves. No wonder the public is confused (the scientific community certainly is).
I generally don't read anything that isn't objective (mainly read bishophill) but there's a lot of passion on both sides. Generally seems to be:
Climate scientists (most, apparently)
1. Climate change is happening, a significant driver is human activity, if we don't change our ways we will irreversibly damage the planet and its ability to sustain us (where changing our ways means drastic decarbonisation and probably social, economic and cultural changes that are all but unrealistic)
Skeptics / lukewarmers
2. Climate change is happening, but not as fast as the 97% consensus suggests, and while some of it may be due to human activity, the evidence to support the link is often weak; pursuing aggressive change on the basis of flawed science may cause more harm than good
Are you claiming that Bishophill is objective? Even he describes himself as "one of the UK's best-known critics of the so-called global warming consensus." When your strongest champions are the likes of James Dellingpole, you know you're not presenting a balanced, reasoned judgement.
I think you also underestimate how many people, especially on the right, don't think that climate change is happening.
particularly recently (he's been getting pretty snarky of late and the people who post on his blog are as bad as Guardian and Mail readers) - that said, The Hockey Stick Illusion was a good read raised enough questions to make me curious. Like I said, unless you devote your life to reading every in and out (which would ultimately be disappointing) in order to 'know' who is 'right' and who is 'wrong', then your best bet is to adopt a cautionary approach and promote a pragmatic approach to minimising human impacts.
I think you're right, I didn't realise (until that article cited in the OP) how many people flatly deny climate change is happening (which is not what lukewarmers think anyway - anyone with any sense knows that climate change has always happened and will continue to do so). It worries me that politicians (who make decisions) just have opinions thrust onto them and then promulgate them without really knowing the first thing about the subject they're talking about.
as there isn't a definite yes/no to be answered. There are virtually none who go against the greenhouse effect per se, and there are very few who would say that the increase in temperature isn't at least partly attributable to humans (99%ish). Then there are around 3% who would argue that either the man-made aspect is overstated or that the inevitably huge uncertainties involved with trying to understand something that is essentially one big experiment that has never been carried out before outweigh the potential impacts when it comes to mitigation (enter Judith Curry). Very few of those 3% would argue that climate change should not be mitigated against though.
Scientific consensus is that it exists and that it is man-made. It's as conclusive as you're ever going to get in science.
So TL,DR version is:
Can't tell if this is a joke thread so sincere response.
Ozone reduces The amount of UV reaching the surface of earth. UV causes issues such as cancer, and is generally unrelated to climatic phenomena. Therefore, the ozone layer and climate change are two different issues.
The "Ozone problem" has largely been felt with, because the chemicals causing it, although cheep and easy to obtain, we're easily replaceable by other, less damaging chemicals, and so a working protocol could be created that was largely followed.
Responding to climate change requires much greater infrastructural change, the current infrastructure funding ur man CG's lot, so there is no desire on their behalf to open up to the issue, yet they're still happy to claim that the lucrative funding stream in academia *cough* is biasing the issue.
thought the hole in the ozone layer was connected to the melting of the ice caps and change in sea level though, m y bad
but the areas where it had thinned and a hole appeared were over the polar regions.
Nothing to do with climate change really, except the attempted global response to climate change (Kyoto Protocol) was based on the successful response to the Ozone Hole (Montreal Protocol), even though climate change is infinitely more complicated (ozone hole recovery as a result of agreements to develop substitute for CFCs in fridges etc. - no-one lost money, everything carries on as normal, whilst climate change is (and this is a technical term) a 'super wicked problem'). So you could say that the perceived similarity between the two issues has been the main reason we have failed so miserably to adequately respond to climate change.
Also, my TL,DR version was longer than the original.
I read an article recently about how the levels of ozone depleting chemicals in the atmosphere are declining nowhere near as fast as they should be despite there being officially zero emissions since whenever it was they were banned. Nobody knows why. I'll see if I can find it.
"It is now apparent there are either unidentified industrial leakages, large emissions from contaminated sites, or unknown CCl4 sources,"
re; the quote, I'm gonna go with 'or all three'