Global Warming a Rethink

[foghornleghorn2]

Joe Public is starting to doubt the "experts"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8500443.stm

How does it go

You can fool some of the people ...............

[Stig]

Yeah, but who is fooling who?

[foghornleghorn2]

I think that the pro global warming camp have over egged the pudding.

There is climate change without a doubt, but hasn't that always been the case ?

We (the human race) have done and continue to do terrible things to our planet, we pollute rivers, we kill of species, and we cut down rainforests, to name but a few.

The urgent thing now is to stop cutting down the rainforest.

[saint-spoon]

Whether or not we are to blame I don’t think that blaming ourselves is entirely a bad thing, especially if it means that we stop destroying the environment and work towards protecting the little we have left.
I suspect that the sceptics are more interested in keeping their gas guzzling cars than the environment; if denying global warming allows them to not change their lifestyles then I suspect that this is what many folk will do.

[foghornleghorn2]

Whether or not we are to blame I don’t think that blaming ourselves is entirely a bad thing, especially if it means that we stop destroying the environment and work towards protecting the little we have left.
I suspect that the sceptics are more interested in keeping their gas guzzling cars than the environment; if denying global warming allows them to not change their lifestyles then I suspect that this is what many folk will do.

But surely channeling millions and millions of pounds into investigating something that may well be a natural phenomenon is not beneficial to anyone, better to spend that money in other ways such as finding methods to reuse plastic that otherwise clogs up our planet, alternative energy source for cars, protecting the rainforests etc etc

[Stig]

Foghorn I think you're right to be skeptical; "the truth" as we're told it changes from day to day.

I feel quite sorry for climate scientists though - their work is always tempered with statements about the uncertainty in their findings. When talking about the future, there is always uncertainty. Read any of the IPCC's reports & this is made absolutely clear. But this does not translate into exciting headlines, so the media have to spin it into something bigger & more dramatic. Usually taking "worst case" scenarios & presenting them as "likely case" or even fact.

Nothing has changed in the climate change debate. But the media stance has changed, I think, in response to the economic state we're in. We can't afford to tackle the issues from within a recession, so all of a sudden the issues don't need tackling. So says the newspapers, owned by rich & powerful corporations... They bigged it up, now they'll knock it down. And make a profit from both.

I don't like to get into discussions about the science - I'm no scientist or even particularly clever. But my simplistic view is, carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) make Earth warmer. You can demonstrate this in a kitchen sink experiment :

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8394168.stm

Humans are producing more & more greenhouse gases, & so it seems reasonable that we are at least contributing to climate change, even if we aren't the cause of it.

Most of the millions being ploughed in to tackle climate change is actually spent on renewable sources of energy. To me this is the right thing to do, even if climate change is not the issue. Our use of oil and gas is not sustainable and we need alternatives.

Other areas you mention, such as the issues with plastic and alternative fuel for cars, have developed more in the last 10 years, in the light of climate change, than ever before. It's all good isn't it? What millions do you find to be a waste?

But you are right about the rain forest. It's simple, all we have to do is make the choice. If mankind can't even NOT destroy a jungle, even when it's known how vital it is for the planet's survival, there is no way we could accomplish any of the clever stuff the scientists propose for the future.

[foghornleghorn2]

The scientists who claim that Global warming is looming over us like the sword of a hooded executioner are all on a good wage, they won't want to give that up.

http://www.goldenageproject.org.uk/977.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... fornothing

It was once expained to me that if you applied for a research grant into the mating habits of red squirrels you would be unlikely to get a bean. If you asked for a grant to look into the impact global warming has had on the red squirrel population you would be more than likely to get it.

We get lied to/misled all the time.A few spring to mind

Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq

AIDS

Swine flu

Millenium bug

Rabies

[Stig]

Again. The "sword of a hooded executioner"-type rhetoric is generated by the media, not scientists. Also there is virtually unanimous acceptance that global warming is a reality. The questions unanswered are around the impact man has made and if we can do anything to fix it at this stage of the game.

You're right, we are misled all the time. Interesting you should include a link to an article by Lomborg of all people if you're concerned with honesty. (What on earth is he doing in the Guardian?! Although in the case of the linked article it is an interesting proposition, admittedly..)

Why do you feel you were misled about AIDS? Surely the fact is that hundreds of thousands of lives were saved as a result of a successful awareness campaign. Presumably you are aware of the situation in other parts of the world, worst of all being sub-Saharan Africa:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/90/aids-in-africa

[foghornleghorn2]

Perhaps AIDS was not such a good one to put in the list as I know it is a real problem in Africa. But you get my gist.

They did over egg the impact it would have here in the UK.

Is this just the media ? Someone must give them the info surely



Global warming, a man made problem ? maybe, who knows for certain.

But it could just be a natural occurrence or somewhere between the two, again who knows.

One thing I do know is that chopping down rainforests is totally bad for the planet so why not divert some money into stopping that, now. There doesn't need to be any research done, just stop it now.

[BodhisatvaJohn]

Foghorn

You will never understand the complicated aspects of AGW if you continue to take your view from the Daily Mail. that paper and similar have an agenda, to dissimulate bad science, and thus to set confusion in peoples minds. The public usually take note of things that are said over and over again, if they are constantly fef a drip fed of drip fed distortions, of course they will believe it. Ther public are not scientists, they can'tbe expected to understand the intricacies of such complicated sceience.

Have you actually read any of the scientific paper Mr Foghorn dealing with AGW? I very much doubt you have! There is NOTHING in the papaers in question, that doubt that global warming is man made. I could spend all day here, pointing out the nonsense's that the deniers rant on about. You see, they have their own agenda, to deny that global warming is man made - it will mean them giving up a lot of their cosy lifestyles, their SUVs, their extensive pane trips, their over heated house and so on. Why do you think the large petro- chemical companies like Exxon and BP are spending trillions od dollars hiring PR companies to push out false information. The deniers have power backers and there is not an active campaign onto to sway the minds of the public. The same PR firms that the cigarette companies used, to try to counter the warning about cigarettes, are now being used by the oil and coal industries.

Are you saying that we should do nothing then! And and just let the planet carry on it's way! If you are seriously advocating such a stance. I would say then that you have little care for future generations.

The public are not scientists of course, they have to relay on science for the answers. Despite the nonsence that is being written by the deniers like the Mail, and The Times, most scientists are decent people, are work out of compassion. There is not conspiracy, not profits involved here

Did Phil Jones really say global warming ended in 1995?
A headline in the Daily Mail has spread like wildfire, claiming that Phil Jones, ex-director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, said "there has been no global warming since 1995". Not only did Phil Jones not say these words, this interpretation shows a poor understanding of the scientific concepts behind his words. To fully understand what Phil Jones was saying, one needs to read his actual words and understand the science discussed. Here is the relevant excerpt from the BBC interview:

BBC: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Phil Jones: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

BBC: How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

Phil Jones: I'm 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 - there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.
Phil Jones is saying there is a warming trend but it's not statistically significant. He's not talking about whether warming is actually happening. He's discussing our ability to detect that warming trend in a noisy signal over a short period. To demonstrate this, look at the HadCRUT temperature record from 1995 to 2009. The linear trend is that of warming. However, the temperature record is very noisy with lots of short term variability. The noisy signal means that over a short period, the uncertainty of the warming trend is almost as large as the actual trend. Hence it's considered statistically insignificant. Over longer time periods, the uncertainty is less and the trend is more statistically significant.

[Steve the Gas]

John if you are gonna jump onto to your soap box so excitedly, please use spell check. I have to keep re-reading ie to fathom what your pointing out.

[bluebell]

John, I am a bit shocked at your response to Foghorn.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as you are, but your post questioning people's intellect because they read a certain newspaper is a bit rude, in my opinion.

You say the public are not scientists, but a percentage of them are, and a fair proportion of joe public ARE intelligent people to boot.

[manda]

I think it would be hard to argue that the population having risen from 2.55 billion in 1950 to 6.8 billion in 2009 hasn't had an effect on the planet and the resources required to maintain that population are not all sustainable. I think the issue here is not who is responsible for the changes to date but who has to be responsible for making the changes for the future.

What does not surprise me is that perhaps the public are starting to question the validity of concern regarding global warming when the powers that be can't get their act together and sort something out for the benefit of the planet we live on.

[roddelmae]

John, your denegration of people who choose to read the Daily Mail is, as another contributor has said, rude.
You say the Mail has 'an agenda'; the Guardian doesn't? Don't try and kid a kidder.

[foghornleghorn2]

Whoooo Bojo, you need to take a chill pill and fast baby.

I don't know where you are getting the references to the Daily Mail from I don't read it, unless it is laying about in a cafe somewhere.

To catergorise people by what newspaper they read is very wrong, I'm sure not everyone who reads the Guardian is a treehugging, sandal wearing, muesli muncher but if the peruvian knitted hat fits..........

I have an opinion about global warming that doesn't sit well with you, well thats tough, it's a free country and I am entitled to an opinion whatever it may be. Deal with it Bojo and move on.