Was emailed this link to a Sydney radio station interview yesterday:http://www.2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998
Some concerning points are raised.
I think we need a national debate on this topic.
I'm not sure how many times I've posted this link to various sceptics over the years, but here's a "Guide for the Perplexed" published by New Scientist, a peer reviewed science magazine.
www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed/
Quote from the article
"In January 2009, a poll of 3146 earth scientists found that 82% answered yes to the question: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?". Of the 77 climatologists actively engaged in research, 75 answered yes (97.4%).
The scientists most likely to answer no were petroleum geologists and meteorologists."
btw, I believe Lindzens' experiment was done around 2000, another team performed the same experiment with different tools and found a different result.
Numbers 'for' or 'against' a point of view never made it right or wrong. And that's the whole problem with the present debate on climate change. It has become an argument with more similarities to a religious debate than a scientific debate.
If you had taken it on the numbers then the earth is the centre of the universe. That point was clearly and definitely decided over 300 years ago. It was so definitely decided that anyone who disagreed and publicly said so, ran the risk of being burned at the stake. And some did, and consequently were.
It took 300 years for the authorative body who claimed the earth was the centre of the universe to publicly admit that they were WRONG! They had to really. With the advent of 20th century science it became obvious to everyone except the most diehard adherents of 'infallible decrees' that nothing much at all revolved around our little rock.
If just one person can put up a clear and reasonable argument that humans are NOT the major cause of the present warming trend then that has to be listened to and disputed on a scientific basis. And that basis cannot be that more people agree with this side than that side. That just proves that they have had to resort to a religious debate because their science is not altogether backing them up.
The change of public perception that the earth was NOT the centre of the universe was started by only a very few people. And there was no money in it for them. And they were right and EVERYONE ELSE was WRONG! They made their point on a scientific basis. Their oponents made their point on a religious basis.
The matter of whether the earth was the centre of the universe had no relevance to the economic welfare of the people. The matter of CO2 "polution" does. The fact that it is called "polution" is a clear sign that logic is not the driving factor of the argument. Carbon is 'polution' to carbon based lifeforms (i.e. us ) in the same way that gold dust would be a polution to your bank acount.
All this talk of "carbon trading" and "carbon credits" taints the whole debate and there is no doubt that even if humans have no effect at all on the climate, there are many who would still push strongly for the present path of carbon trading to continue.
That's the point, it's not a popularity contest and the science behind it is both hard to understand and quite complicated, despite the simplistic models touted about. Hence people are employed to do nothing BUT look at the climate and the way it is changing, so we need to listen to THEIR opinions.
If my doctor told me that I had cancer but a radio personality said that I didn't, I would probably listen to the doctor.
If nine out of ten doctors told me I had cancer, I wouldn't give a f*ck how many radio personalities, politicians or economists told me that I didn't. Just because it's expensive to treat, doesn't mean that the cancer isn't there.
We rely on people who are experts in the field to tell us what is happening. 75 out of 77 Climatologists have, it is happening and debating about how much money it will cost and who gets the money doesn't really change anything.
Have a look at the article I posted if you want to look at some of the ideas behind climate change, read some peer reviewed science articles rather than listening to "personalities" about it (and that includes Al Gore)
The debate should be what are we going to do about it, not whether it is happening.
p.s. Yes Carbon trading is ****, but it doesn't mean that the problem doesn't exist.
p.p.s. Don't get me started on Carbon offsetting either.
i hard on the wahless recntly that carbon was worth something lik $40.00 a kilo around ten years ago and now about $0.10. Do you suppose if i bought a few million tons of the stuff, would the price go up and then i could slowly sell it back for a profit? Aternatively if carbon sequestration becomes a good tax dodge could i call building with carbon fibre, sequestration and make landyachts etc and claim a tax credit?
Climate change is a result of sun spot activity NOT human activity.
I dare anyone to show conclusive proof to the contrary.
If an untruth (lie) is repeated often enough, people eventually accept it as truth.
I guess you have me there Trant. There is some correlation though however disproportionate. Temperatures and sunspot activity are both rising.
paddymac. I agree with what you say but what you are talking about is "Theory" just like evolution which is still Darwin's theory. It has not been proven and so therefore is not fact like many people believe.
The same is true with Global Warming/Climate Change. It has been repated so often that many people have accepted it as fact.
Another theory worthy of consideration is that put forward by Immanuel Velikovsky in his books Worlds in Collision and Earth in Upheaval, published by Abacus.
Google his name to get some idea of it but better if you can get hold of the books which I believe are still available. They really put a different slant on things. His theory is based on facts.
The Wongs, Gawwets and Wudds of the world do not give us facts. They just ripp us off.
Cheers Cisco
The intellectual debate - where both sides should be read and circulated widely to help scientists develop their theories
The PR game - where most people read 3 or at most 6 sentences on global warming that are thrust in front of them by whoever wants to sell newspapers, petrol, Toyota Prius, eggs or solar panels, in between an article on posh spice and rugby league players in hotel rooms...
Free speech definitely applies to the first category...
It also applies to the second, but with a lack of proper review and diligent readers, we reserve the right to strike down crude summaries as irresponsible and wrong eg sun spots cause global warming...
I love the way the unintelligent blonde fluff on the news recently said we have had the hottest October day since 1960something (her emphasis on those words)
Of course they then look stern and mention global warming / climate change
Hang on.... so we actually had a hotter October day in the 60's? Hmmmm........
Regardless of which camp you're in, the most infuriating part is always the media.
the reckon climate change is because our solar system is flattening out !!!
dont worry were all going to die in 2012 when our milky way colides with plannet boobies X
undefined Ref ... utube
Everyone in the world should buy an Iced Tea and then we all drink it at the same time......
Can anybody think of a dynamic system that doesn't oscillate?? Flags flutter, fins whistle, roads corrugate, skirts go up and down.
No doubt we're doing enough to make a difference, like putting a bit of duck tape on a flag - It'll change the way it flutters but there's a fair chance it will still work OK? Or maybe only half a chance it'll work OK? A bit of a guess, the only way to really know is to put it up the flag pole again.
The next 20 years will be interesting.
Cisco is both right and wrong - sunspot activity goes through a regular cycle called the Maunder cycle which lasts about 11 years. We went through the Maunder minimum recently so yes, sunspot activity is now increasing but it'll decrease again in a few years when the cycle hits maximum. There has been some talk of a larger cycle on top of that with a longer period but we just don't have enough data to really flesh out whether it exists 'cause we just haven't been looking at the Sun long enough to collect the info.
Is climate change due to solar activity? Probably yes to some extent because Mars is also thought to be going through some global warming of its own. Humans definitely have nothing to do with that one! But really, it isn't understood how much and anyway, we're still learning just how the Earth and Sun are tied together. Eg just this past couple of weeks there was a paper released showing that the solar wind is much more complex than was thought to be the case previously. What that means for the Earth is anyone's guess.
But really, arguing about the cause of climate change is like arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. A pointless argument. Clearly, whatever geological record we look at shows that the Earth's climate is always changing. It has previously been warmer and colder than it is now. Even if there were no humans then the climate would still change. So even if we clean up our act completely and cause zero pollution, still the climate will change.
So the debate should stop fussing over whether we're causing it or not and start focussing on the real question - what do we do about it?
Here endeth the rant.
PS I think some in the science community are already trying to have that debate but the media, as always, is slow on the uptake. There's more papers to be sold with doom and gloom headlines.
The true irony of the whole climate change argument is that the best way to stop human interference would be to stop having babies and reduce the human population. Of course in 100 years or so with no births the human race will be wiped out and then there would really be no point in saving the planet anyway :)
I love the way people want to "save the earth for future generations" when the mere act of creating future generations is making it unihabitable that much faster.
Do you really care if humans are still around in another 500 years? not like you gonna live to see it!
On that line of thought isn't there something contradictory when in one week KRUDD welcomes Australia's population doubling in the next 40 years, then the next week he laments the climate change sceptics ransoming future generation's on the alter of greed and ignorance?
Doesn't take Einstein to work out more people means more consumption and more pollution. Unless our society and economy is radically altered and we revert to some sort of pre or post industrial way of existance then more people must mean more pollution. As technology improves humans are better able to exploit and destroy the environment. Combined with increased numbers means there is more need to exploit and destroy.
50 years ago a household was lucky to have a few electric lights, a fridge and a radio. Now we have all sorts of gadgets that need electricity.
In relation to climate change. The geological evidence indicates that Earth's climate changes regulary. Similarly sea levels regulary change. Human history has recorded changes in climate that predate the possibility of humans affecting climate. For example the Norse grew grapes for wine in modern day Canada and wheat in Greenland. The Romans grew grapes in modern day northern England.
Clearly humanity is greatly affecting local and global environments. The question is whether the idea of carbon taxes are going to anything besides taxing the average person, transferring billions to the biggest polluters and earning brokers big fat bonuses.
A bloke called Ian Plimer published a book earlier this year called "Heaven and Earth" about the idea of global warming filling the spiritual void left in the western world. He s a lecture at my uni and its pretty interesting to hear his ideas about global warming from a geologists point.
I just hope that i can claim carbon credits when I buy carbon windsurfing gear as I am locking up that nasty carbon in my masts, booms and boards etc from the atmosphere.
i heard an interesting theory in an interview today... we are carbon based lifeforms, does that mean, as responsible for carbon emmissions we can be traded by our governments or those we owe financial debts too, as carbon offsets.
effectively being sold as slaves
