Some Interesting Articles On Global Warming

[Oli 1]

Well that's one theory.

Allegedly there have been ultra-high CO2 concentrations before. A theory also doing the rounds is that before life as we know it came into existence, the planet's CO2 were markedly (hundreds of times) higher as a result of volcanic activity. This caused increased cloud formation, increasing the planet's albedo - more light/heat reflected back and instead of a runaway Venus scenario, the planet cooled and turned into a giant snowball.

So this begs a few questions:

- How come its not a snowball now? Well, an interesting phenomenon took place - the increased cloud cover lead to massively increased precipitation - constant pouring of rain. This dissolved the CO2 to form carbonic acid which reacted with alkaline calciferous rocks to create limestone/chalk. So the planet corrected the CO2 levels by raining it out. Evidence for this comes from rock strata.

- How come the planet didn't turn into Venus? Indeed.....

As I've said, I don't think we're going to turn into a giant ball or fire or ice, destroying the human race. I do think that the potential consequences are worth acting on where it is in our interests anyway to do so. It's not an all-or-nothing scenario- we don't have to pour ALL our tax into it, but right now we can afford to do more.

Why? We would be the only era on our planet that has given any consideration to what things are going to be like in 100 years+ time. All of this is based upon scientific guesswork. We are seeking to restrict economic development of developing countries, burdening our business and people with taxes and diverting billions of funding into one area, when it could be used to help find a cure for cancer, AIDS, prevent malaria or invest in infrastructure.

So you're the president of the world now - you have $50 billion to invest - where are you going to spend it? On something that might possibly happen, based upon possible projections/ideas and might cause problems/deaths or on helping living, breathing people now who are dying because of inadequate access to medicines, food, clean water and pesticides.

If you back GW and it turns out to be wrong, could you live with your conscience knowing that millions have died preventable deaths?

Yup. Sorry to be harsh, but 50 billion isn't going to fix the world. It seems to me investing in cures which might not exist and money that gets swallowed up by corrupt dictatorships is more of a gamble than what I am proposing.

And why all of a sudden are they backing this, when they have failed to act in the past? If our governments are that caring about the world situation, why didn't they act when we thought an ice age was on the way?

Because nobody did except for a few magazines. As I've explained about FIVE HUNDRED TIMES

Why did they sit on their hands with famine in Africa until a faded pop-star shocked them into action.

Because "they" knew it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. And they were right. They let Geldof have his little moment of charity, then allowed the whole thing to be quietly forgotton. The pragmatic approach- harsh but fair.

Ah you've hit the nail on the head "reduced dependance on foreign oil" - ....hmmm

And no, clean energy is a fallacy, like I have said. Wind power is not clean - it carries an added CO2 burden, wave power is in its infancy, solar is inefficient and expensive...... Fossil fuels are hear to stay for many, many years.

Yes, you have said that, but I have never argued we should instantly switch to alternative fuels- that's taking my argument to an extreme. I'm merely arguing the case for increasing investment into its research and deployment. I'm also arguing that as history has shown technologies improve with time and investment. Total dependence on alternative fuels may not be a reality yet, but to say it isn't possible is just ridiculous.

[Oli 1]

Nope: shipping and industry - yet you show me where governments have acted with such fervour to reduce shipping CO2 outputs and even industrial outputs to any significant degree. Its all based upon consumers - why? Because they are easy to tax and easy to scare/control.

As far as I know there has been plenty of activity- carbon credits and emissions trading, research into clean coal plants, changes in manufacturing regulations to ensure efficiency. I'm not sure what basis you have for thinking that only consumers are being targeted. How has all this affected you personally? I haven't noticed any change at all, aside from the fact that my new TV doesn't have a standby mode.

[pabloh20 1]

And that means:

a) You are omnipotent and know whether somebody who believes in GW actually made a connection or not or even if there is a really relevant connection between a single hurricane and a GW theory. If you meant that nobody mentioned any connection between an increase in hurricane's frequency and intensity, then you must have read the Reader's Digest version of GW, because there are articles aplenty about that issue.

You know that according to the GW theory, ANY climatic event anywhere must be directly related to GW, otherwise the theory must be wrong, whether it is a hurricane or a sunny but cold november monday at Frankfurt. GW MUST give some kind of connection or fall be demolished by sarcastic comments with no further analisys whatsoever.

c) The hurricane somehow disproves the GW theory. Perhaps because winds means more cold air hence no warming? Perhaps because you believe its like some kind of giant fan which will bring fresh air all across the globe? Because it will dissipate all the farts from cows in Haiti and southern USA? What is the connection you are trying to establish? Or is it just a sneering comment with no purpose whatsoever?

I think the inference was that we do not seem to have the knowledge or technology to accurately predict the occurrence and/or path of a climatical (yes it is a word, before you ask ) event that is happening right now, let alone predict what the climate is going to do years into the future.

[Oli 1]

That's just macro vs micro scale. It's a fallacious argument- we can't predict when a radioactive source will emit a beta particle for instance, but we do know over time it will decay at a constant average rate.

[maure 1]

And the fun continues. Weather and climate are not related.

We all know why _no_one_ knows where, if, or how strong the hurricane will hit. That's just as expected.

The interesting questions is, how do you rationalize it? Let's see.

Climate-wise, we are told that not only it is possible to determine _what_ will happen, but _why_.

Weather-wise, we do reasonably well over a 3 day window, rather poorly over a one week window, no luck at all if months are involved.

Again, how do you explain this to yourselves?

[pabloh20 1]

That's just macro vs micro scale. It's a fallacious argument- we can't predict when a radioactive source will emit a beta particle for instance, but we do know over time it will decay at a constant average rate.

I would hardly call it macro v micro as the whole weather system is related, so a hurricane is not just a local phenomenon that has no relation to the rest of the climate. The problem is, using your analogy, is that there is no way of even determining the 'average rate' of hurricanes. It is impossible to predict if there will be 0, 1, 10 or whatever, we don't even have the ability to do that. And it's not like there is a lack of empirical data to use either.

[maure 1]

That's just macro vs micro scale. It's a fallacious argument- we can't predict when a radioactive source will emit a beta particle for instance, but we do know over time it will decay at a constant average rate.

I didn't see your post.

Here is another one (I mean, another fallacious argument).

We don't know how the brain is able to process and store language but we know with certainty that people age and die, often times yapping all the way through.

[Quiet One 15]

I would hardly call it macro v micro as the whole weather system is related, so a hurricane is not just a local phenomenon that has no relation to the rest of the climate. The problem is, using your analogy, is that there is no way of even determining the 'average rate' of hurricanes. It is impossible to predict if there will be 0, 1, 10 or whatever, we don't even have the ability to do that. And it's not like there is a lack of empirical data to use either.

Sorry but it gets even more confusing what both you and Maure are trying to infer. Let me see if understand: so because a single hurricane's ocurrence or path cannot be predicted, we can barely predict a global climate trend?

If that is the argument, it makes no sense. We cannot predict whether tomorrow will actually rain or not. Does that mean that we cannot predict that spring will follow wintertime?

@Maure: how do we rationalize it? You cannot predict a single atom's disintegration time. But you can predict the half life of a given quantity of radioactive material. Does the former disproves the latter? Your argument does nothing to disprove the GW theory.

EDIT: I just realize Oli and I used the same analogy. Well...pick any other statistical one you like.

[pabloh20 1]

Sorry but it gets even more confusing what both you and Maure are trying to infer. Let me see if understand: so because a single hurricane's ocurrence or path cannot be predicted, we can barely predict a global climate trend?

If that is the argument, it makes no sense. We cannot predict whether tomorrow will actually rain or not. Does that mean that we cannot predict that spring will follow wintertime?

@Maure: how do we rationalize it? You cannot predict a single atom's disintegration time. But you can predict the half life of a given quantity of radioactive material. Does the former disproves the latter? Your argument does nothing to disprove the GW theory.

EDIT: I just realize Oli and I used the same analogy. Well...pick any other statistical one you like.

To be honest, Andres, I wasn't intending to get into any argument at all regarding GW, it just seemed that you missed the point of Maure's post.

However, I believe the point was not about the inability to predict a single hurricane's occurrence or path, it's about the inability to predict anything at all regarding hurricanes, such is the complexity of the climate system.

Also, it may be perfectly feasible that we cannot predict that spring will follow wintertime, or that wintertime is indeed wintertime - just come to the UK and you will see what I mean

And don't get me started on the whole in the ozone layer! I mean how many bollocking eskimos using deodorant would it take to cause that in the Antartic?? Why are eskimos using deodorant in the first place?? It's all bollocks I tell you.

[Quiet One 15]

To be honest, Andres, I wasn't intending to get into any argument at all regarding GW, it just seemed that you missed the point of Maure's post.

However, I believe the point was not about the inability to predict a single hurricane's occurrence or path, it's about the inability to predict anything at all regarding hurricanes, such is the complexity of the climate system.

Also, it may be perfectly feasible that we cannot predict that spring will follow wintertime, or that wintertime is indeed wintertime - just come to the UK and you will see what I mean

And don't get me started on the whole in the ozone layer! I mean how many bollocking eskimos using deodorant would it take to cause that in the Antartic?? Why are eskimos using deodorant in the first place?? It's all bollocks I tell you.

BTW, no eskimos in the Antarctica only smelly, bearded and bored russian, american, british and scientists there. And smelly, bearded and bored penguins. I don't know why I thought about my ex gf while writing that...

As for the complexity of the climate system...that's something we all agree, I think. That's precisely why we should be very careful dealing with it. Maybe freaking out about a global catastrophic weather change is ridiculous (if GW is wrong). You can call me a gullible moron if that ever happens.

This is my reasoning: "there seems to be a reasonable possibility of a GW catastrophe. I think it must be studied and preventive measures be taken, just because the climate is so complex we cannot **** it up because we obviously won't be able to fix it later"

This is anti GW reasoning as I see it: "there seems to be a reasonable possibilty of GW not actually happening. I think we should keep pumping CO2 and greenhouse gases"

If I am wrong. I will be a gullible moron who supported the UN nations and Greenpeace (and many NGOs and scientist) so anti GW governments like UK and USA could pass more taxes (?).

If you are wrong, you will have supported anti GW governments like USA and UK with strong interests with heavy contaminating industries to keep the status quo until the climate was irreversibly changed.

See? It's not just the fact that GW is proven or not (like many said, it is at least 50/50). Is the carelessness of ignoring it of frankly confronting its possibility just because people don't like Al Gore, because they think Greenpeace is a bunch of smelly hippies, or because they think heavy taxes are because of enviromental issues, and not because (for example) gigantic defense budgets.

That's what I see and it appals me.

[pabloh20 1]

BTW, no eskimos in the Antarctica only smelly, bearded and bored russian, american, british and scientists there. And smelly, bearded and bored penguins. I don't know why I thought about my ex gf while writing that...

As for the complexity of the climate system...that's something we all agree, I think. That's precisely why we should be very careful dealing with it. Maybe freaking out about a global catastrophic weather change is ridiculous (if GW is wrong). You can call me a gullible moron if that ever happens.

This is my reasoning: "there seems to be a reasonable possibility of a GW catastrophe. I think it must be studied and preventive measures be taken, just because the climate is so complex we cannot **** it up because we obviously won't be able to fix it later"

This is anti GW reasoning as I see it: "there seems to be a reasonable possibilty of GW not actually happening. I think we should keep pumping CO2 and greenhouse gases"

If I am wrong. I will be a gullible moron who supported the UN nations and Greenpeace (and many NGOs and scientist) so anti GW governments like UK and USA could pass more taxes (?).

If you are wrong, you will have supported anti GW governments like USA and UK with strong interests with heavy contaminating industries to keep the status quo until the climate was irreversibly changed.

See? It's not just the fact that GW is proven or not (like many said, it is at least 50/50). Is the carelessness of ignoring it of frankly confronting its possibility just because people don't like Al Gore, because they think Greenpeace is a bunch of smelly hippies, or because they think heavy taxes are because of enviromental issues, and not because (for example) gigantic defense budgets.

That's what I see and it appals me.

Yeah, I know, but it wouldn't have been the same if I had said scientists. For bollocking hell's sake, we all know they never use deodorant

I agree, as I said, I wasn't intending my post as any sort of opposement to GW, just that I could see the point Maure was making.

I think what I'd like to hear is that yes, we believe there is GW, but we have no bollocking idea what is going to happen to the climate. We think it will change........a bit............or maybe a lot

Oh and I'd like to point out that it's not global warming at all, because apparently here in the UK it's going to get colder. So my globals will be freezing.

[Quiet One 15]

Yeah, I know, but it wouldn't have been the same if I had said scientists. For bollocking hell's sake, we all know they never use deodorant

I agree, as I said, I wasn't intending my post as any sort of opposement to GW, just that I could see the point Maure was making.

I think what I'd like to hear is that yes, we believe there is GW, but we have no bollocking idea what is going to happen to the climate. We think it will change........a bit............or maybe a lot

Oh and I'd like to point out that it's not global warming at all, because apparently here in the UK it's going to get colder. So my globals will be freezing.

Oh no, I won't let you get out of this debate! So I'll just say that whatever you write is just greenhouse gaseous bollocks!

Sorry, I just used your posts as a base to make my own line of reasoning more clear.

[pabloh20 1]

Oh no, I won't let you get out of this debate! So I'll just say that whatever you write is just greenhouse gaseous bollocks!

Sorry, I just used your posts as a base to make my own line of reasoning more clear.

Well, bollock me the honorary baldy link is strong tonight. I started the night not believing in GW at all. Now, not only do I believe wholeheartedly in GW, but also that my green gout grassy arse bollocks are contributing to it. At least I think that's what you compelled me to write

[Max Mosley 2]

My face hurts from laughing.

Glad we're both getting something out of this then.

The rest of your post is the usual straw man nonsense. You keep refusing to admit that the vast majority of scientists accept the GW theory. That should be enough to show anyone with any intelligence that you're being disingenuous.

Why doesn't at least _one_ of the "vast majority of scientists" (that Murray claims are in-the-know) alert the world with enough time to save lives?

In fact plenty of scientists did warn that climate change increases the risk of freak weather.

The problem with going with the consensus is that it is based upon the knowledge prevalent at the time.

What basis for an opinion could there possibly be other than knowledge? The big flaw in my argument is that it follows logically from all the knowledge we have right now?

Times and times again it has been proven that the consensus view is not always right.

Yes and nobody is disputing that. But all other things being equal, it is generally wise to trust a consensus of experts. I hope you never do, but if you someday find yourself in hospital with a team of doctors telling you that you have a serious problem that they need to treat there and then, we both know you would trust the experts.

[Max Mosley 2]

• A model that is not proven to be taking place - greenhouse effect with CO2 is not proven as I understand it
  

The greenhouse effect is a proven mechanism for global warming. It was proven by the 1950s that CO2 will heat the planet. The remaining questions are things like: what other mechanisms affect the climate; are there any feedback loops that dampen or amplify these processes etc? For example in the '50s we were producing other types of pollution that cool the planet, so they weren't worried about global warming.

• Based upon an incomplete, small, inaccurate data set (NASA fiddling, what is the global temperature exactly? Known gaps in data and some data which has been calculated/made up)
  

No, there are plenty of sources of data other than NASA.

• A model which ignores other effects, such as solar changes, water vapour
  

No, those things are included, at least in some of the more recent models.

• Panic scenarios of potential disasters (I still ask the question - what, exactly are we trying to prevent?)
  

I don't think either me or Oli are predicting the end of the world - simply that it is better to deal with the problem now.

are you really saying that we should restrict the economic activities of developing countries, punish ourselves with taxes, invest in technologies which are questionable (e.g. nuclear)? to save Bangladesh and a few other small islands?

Apart from the pedantic point that Bangladesh is neither small nor an island, yes I would rather invest in nuclear technology than make life significantly harder for hundreds of millions of the world's poorest people.

Why don't we invest in those countries, find a way of moving people? etc Isn't that a better long term investment than building thousands of wind turbines and associated gas power stations?

I'm all for investing in those countries. Btw what do you suggest we do when fossil fuels run out?

Personally I believe all this activity is grossly misplaced. I would rather countries invested effort into preventing and curing famine, AIDS and Malaria - the biggest killers of our time, especially in Africa. I bet you if you looked at investing all the money pouring into GW activities into those three areas we would save 100 times the number of people who are projected to suffer/die from GW.

I've already said poverty is a bigger crisis than GW. But it's possible for both to be threats.

[Max Mosley 2]

Naughty fellow Muzza, I'm a layman, I find all of it interesting, for me the jury is still out:P Though I am looking for 'balance' - the pro GW is put across as alarmist, the other side as 'Mr Angry' (I don't mean those on here, I mean in a political sense), hence my hunt (and interest!!) for information that I can trust, is unbiased and is presented with complete transparency.

Well I think if you read this thread and spend a few minutes on google you will soon see which side has been more transparent. Chris posted up a petition which he admits was a joke. You're now honestly telling me you knew it was purely a joke all along?

I'm enjoying everyone's comments here, in awe of how much time people have to spend on Google too - my job is 99% involved in Google and I still wouldn't have the time to do what you lot are! However, I'd be interested to know if any of those with such staunch views (either way) would consider themselves qualified to comment authoratively. Is anyone here expert/qualified in related theories/studies in GW, climate change etc etc? Or have their beliefs led them to purely back their pov? And I'm not being sarcy, it's understandable. But not unbiased....

No one here is an expert on climate change. But why do you ask? The vast majority of such experts accept GW, if you were looking for reassurance from the experts. I am backing my views because the other side are being disingenuous.

My biggest concern is whether our children will learn to question for themselves on this issue, as opposed to blindly becoming 'The Third Reich' of GW.

Fair enough: that's a nice ideal, but tbh I don't think it's practical in the real world. This will sound smug and superior, but it's the harsh truth. The average person could hardly recite their 8 times table, let alone follow a complicated scientific debate. That's why we have experts. If you go to the doctor you want them to be able to help you there and then. You don't want to be given hundreds of research papers and told to diagnose yourself.

EDIT: I just realize Oli and I used the same analogy. Well...pick any other statistical one you like.

Yup. It's funny. Your posts on science are very eloquent for someone who isn't a scientist, and yet in your own area of expertise you are a communist. There goes my theory of trusting the experts.

Also, you made me think about statistics in a new way. In fact the whole point of statistics is to handle situations like GW: where you can discern general patterns without understanding every detail. For example, in economics we look for relationships between the base rate of interest and average inflation rates, but we know we can't predict the future price of extra large, ribbed, mango chutney flavoured condoms precisely. In medical trials a new treatment is given to thousands of patients and we simply make a tally of how many people get better, how many get side effects etc. Some patients will respond better than others but only a nincompoop says we shouldn't use a drug just because we can't predict exactly which patients will improve by 54.3% by tomorrow morning. That is the whole point of statistics when you think about it.

See? It's not just the fact that GW is proven or not (like many said, it is at least 50/50). Is the carelessness of ignoring it of frankly confronting its possibility just because people don't like Al Gore, because they think Greenpeace is a bunch of smelly hippies, or because they think heavy taxes are because of enviromental issues, and not because (for example) gigantic defense budgets.

That's what I see and it appals me.

Yes, this is precisely my reasoning too. Everyone will ignore it.

[maure 1]

Sorry but it gets even more confusing what both you and Maure are trying to infer. Let me see if understand: so because a single hurricane's ocurrence or path cannot be predicted, we can barely predict a global climate trend?

If that is the argument, it makes no sense. We cannot predict whether tomorrow will actually rain or not. Does that mean that we cannot predict that spring will follow wintertime?

@Maure: how do we rationalize it? You cannot predict a single atom's disintegration time. But you can predict the half life of a given quantity of radioactive material. Does the former disproves the latter? Your argument does nothing to disprove the GW theory.

EDIT: I just realize Oli and I used the same analogy. Well...pick any other statistical one you like.

A single hurricane? Are you on drugs?

Which hurricanes can be predicted? In fact, what weather can be predicted at all, much less with the certainty that GW claims to have regarding the climate? Let's not forget that GW claims to be able to _predict_ and _explain_. Do you have any idea what a tall order that is?

Still, I thank you for explaining your rationalization process.

Glad we're both getting something out of this then.

The rest of your post is the usual straw man nonsense. You keep refusing to admit that the vast majority of scientists accept the GW theory. That should be enough to show anyone with any intelligence that you're being disingenuous.

I can accept that _you_ believe there is a "vast majority" of anything but I don't think you even understand what you mean when you say anyone "accepts" the GW theory, or any other theory for that matter. To be honest, I don't think you even understand what a "theory" means or implies. Your "straw man nonsense" (these naive confessions of yours are priceless) is identical to any other religious belief with the exception that believing in god is respectable while believing in science factoids is... well, amusing.

So, how can _you_ not demand the "vast majority" of scientists give up their knowledge of climate for useful things such as telling us all what the weather is going to be like, say, next month? Closer to home, will the hurrican hit or not? With how much strength? Do tell me, how do you rationalize it?

[Medilloni 6]

Well I think if you read this thread and spend a few minutes on google you will soon see which side has been more transparent. Chris posted up a petition which he admits was a joke. You're now honestly telling me you knew it was purely a joke all along?

I'd agree with your comment about transparency, it's one the reasons why I've enjoyed the thread so far. And no, I'm not telling you I knew it was a joke, I meant what I said in that I find all of it interesting, no more, no less. By all of it, I mean the the arguments both sides have, what they use to make their point and the way they put them forward

No one here is an expert on climate change. But why do you ask? The vast majority of such experts accept GW, if you were looking for reassurance from the experts. I am backing my views because the other side are being disingenuous.

I ask because I'm curious. I'm also curious to hear something from those experts that don't accept GW. Interesting comment on why you're backing your views, I thought you might have backed them purely because you have confidence in them, no matter what 'the other side' are doing.

Fair enough: that's a nice ideal, but tbh I don't think it's practical in the real world. This will sound smug and superior, but it's the harsh truth. The average person could hardly recite their 8 times table, let alone follow a complicated scientific debate. That's why we have experts. If you go to the doctor you want them to be able to help you there and then. You don't want to be given hundreds of research papers and told to diagnose yourself.

It is a nice ideal, but I don't accept it's not worth trying to help your children to question concepts, research, opinions and ideas (pls don't take that too literally Murray - the times tables are fine ).

I agree with you mostly, but I believe there are some who aren't scientists that can learn enough about a specific debate to understand and form their own opinions .

Your continued use of the 'doctor' analogies are open to question too Muzza, again, most of the time you'd probably be right, but then there are surgeons that have left scissors inside people, surgeons that have been found to have forged credentials, doctors that have prescribed wrong treatment, abused patients and more. And no, off the top of my head I'd say my 8 times table isn't as good as my 2x, but with a calculator I can work out square roots I mean no offence Murray, but that's probably one of the reasons why scientists can sometimes struggle with why the 'average' person doesn't accept their word as gospel, hence they challenge it.

I hope there are enough of these for you to understand i'm not having a dig, I'm just interested

[maure 1]

Well, Medilloni, if you have followed the thread you will have noticed that those of us mistakenly called skeptics (two academics and one geologist perhaps also an academic) are simply saying that one cannot reach conclusions too hastly, that it is necessary to be cautious. It's good advice.

Doubt fuels inquiry. Certainty stalls advancement.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

Muzza/Oli you are still playing the "my scientist is cleverer than yours" game. I am not a climate specialist so don't have the detailed knowledge but I, like you can use Google and could almost certainly find yet another study which refutes yours and you would then come back at me with another refuting mine and so we go on.

And so instead, I will ask the question again (which you still have not answered) - what exactly are we trying to prevent? What is the evil thing that GW is supposed to do? Why are we doing all this?

OK. Well let's have a little look - the IPCC bases GW impact on five main headings, below:

1) Water: over the course of the 20th Century there has been a 3% increase in water flowing down the world's rivers and furthermore plants growing in an increased CO2 environment use less water. (Source: Hadley Centre). The biggest impact on water is our growing population 50% increase estimated by end of the century (UN) - water shortages are going to be a fact of life and any impact that CO2 has on this is marginal.

2) Ecosystem: IPCC claims that 20-30% of plant and animal species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5C - 2.5C (medium confidence) (the italics are IPCC's assessment - their official statement of medium confidence is a 50:50 chance). Bear in mind that the biggest threats to most species are not CO2, but loss of ecosystems, hunting, etc anyone basing the call for action on a 50:50 change that some animals and plants might be affected would be doing so on flimsy grounds.

Furthermore historic evidence has shown that the World has been warmer before and animals/plants have survived. Populations of polar bears actually increased over the last 40 years (the biggest threat to them is hunting) and have survived multiple warming events.

3) Food: not widely reported but the IPCC report states that globally the potential for food production is projected to increase with increases in local average temperature over a range of 1C - 3C. (IPCC's projection is 3C rise by end of the century)

Historically farmers have adapted to climate change without the need for Government intervention and don't forget that there are many innovations taking place in farming, such as genetic modification, giving possibilities of improved crop yields and pest-resistance.

4) Coasts: IPCC was concerned about melting of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets and warming expanding ocean volumes.

Sea levels have been rising generally since records began and no sign of acceleration. The most recent study suggests that the average annual rise may have been slightly less in the second half of the 20th Century to the first half (1.5mm compared to 2.0mm)

As for the Pacific islands - sea levels in Maldives have actually been falling over the past 30 years. Tuvalu (which Al Gore said was suffering a depopulation due to sea-rises) registered a 0.7mm p.a. rise since 1978, but when Flinders University in Australia put in a more accurate gauge, after a decade of monitoring, no significant rise was detected and the project was recently abandoned.

IPCC predicts a possible rise of 1.8 to 5.9mm p.a. depending on the level of warming (a far cry from Al Gore's 20 feet rise) - 18 to 59cm by 2100. That is less than a quarter of an inch per annum - very gradual increase and over such a timescale that humans could and would adapt.

5) Health: IPCC's 2001 report focused on increases in malaria. It is well known that temperature has no bearing on Malaria. The 2007 IPCC report on malaria: "Climate change is expected to have some mixed effects, such as decrease or increase of the range and transmission potential of malaria in Africa" and also mentions malnutrition, diarrhoea and cardiovascular diseases.

This is vague and again any impact of CO2 is questionable as the greatest impact upon health is poverty. Interestingly, a warmer world means less poverty (if developing countries are not restricted). See more below.

When the Hadley Centre looked at the UK, in a warmer world there would be an extra 2,000 deaths per annum, BUT an estimated 20,000 lives saved from cold-related problems. Extrapolated across other nations this represents a substantial improvement in mortality. Even the IPCC admits this - the only health outcome ranked as "virtually certain" is "reduced mortality from decreased cold exposure".

In addition - looking at living standards - in the absence of global warming, they would rise by 1% p.a. in the developed world and 2.3% p.a in the undeveloped world (taken from the Stern Review and IPCC special report on Emission Scenarios, which take a very pessimistic view on economic growth and population growth). IPCC's worst case GDP impacts of GW are between 1% and 5% impact on GDP on average (greater than 5% in developed countries and less than 5% in undeveloped).

If you project forward based upon this worst of worst case scenarios, and for arguments sake take GDP impacts of 3% for developed countries and 10% in undeveloped, in a hundred years time, our great grandchildren in the developed world will be only 2.6 times as well off as today, instead of 2.7 times and our contemporaries in the undeveloped world will be "only" 8.5 times better off as they are today, instead of 9.5 times. (Source: An Appeal to Reason: N.Lawson)

So I come back to my original question - what, exactly are we trying to prevent? Even in a GW world, the worst we could hope for is slightly less economic development, more food and less deaths. Those factors which are more alarming are already present (loss of ecosystems, sea-rises are already taking place and there is no evidence that CO2 will make a significant impact)

(I have peer-reviewed sources to back up all of the above if you really want me to - just could not be bothered to type them all in).

Frankly if this is the worst that we have to face, there are more important things to worry about. This is just a case of intellectual masturbation mixed in with scaremongering

[Quiet One 15]

A single hurricane? Are you on drugs?

Which hurricanes can be predicted? In fact, what weather can be predicted at all, much less with the certainty that GW claims to have regarding the climate? Let's not forget that GW claims to be able to _predict_ and _explain_. Do you have any idea what a tall order that is?

For "a single hurricane" I meant ANY given single hurricane...re read Oli's analogy withatoms or my own. The fact that you cannot predict ANY single atom's disintegration time does not disproves a theory. Either you didn't understand the analogy or are being deliberately argumentative. I am amazed you and Cav do not get along better.

As for the "predict and explain", that's trivial. Any hypothesis is made in the hope of being able to predict and explain (as long as we are talking about scientific hypothesis, of course) . Anti GW theories work in the same way so what?

Well, Medilloni, if you have followed the thread you will have noticed that those of us mistakenly called skeptics (two academics and one geologist perhaps also an academic) are simply saying that one cannot reach conclusions too hastly, that it is necessary to be cautious. It's good advice.

This is exactly my point and I think Muzza's and Oli's too. The difference lies on how you do approach this uncertainity. We think preventive action should be taken due to the catatstrophic consequences should the GW trend exist. You think we shouldn't.

If we were talking about a GW process that would take millions or even thousands of years. That would be advisable. But GW theories consider that earth

[maure 1]

For "a single hurricane" I meant ANY given single hurricane...

Hold on, my friend. Not only _any_ given hurricane. No weather prediction whatsoever.

Again, the claim is that climate-wise all is known, explained, etc.

Again, the fact is that weather-wise we are completely lost beyond a very small time-window.

And what you have to offer to rationalize this huge gap in understanding is... what analogy again?

re read Oli's analogy withatoms or my own. The fact that you cannot predict ANY single atom's disintegration time does not disproves a theory.

These analogies amount to nothing. First, they are absurd in the context and scale you want to play in. Second, they simply don't apply any more than the one I offered. They are funny, given the discussion, but they are vacuous.

As for the "predict and explain", that's trivial. Any hypothesis is made in the hope of being able to predict and explain (as long as we are talking about scientific hypothesis, of course) . Anti GW theories work in the same way so what?

If you consider prediction and explanation trivial... Honestly, do you guys think science is that simple?

And, are you saying now that GW is not a "theory" as Murray claims, but a "hypothesis"? And, what do you mean by "hope of being able to predict"? Now you don't know if GW actually is _able_ to predict but you hope it does?

There no "anti" GW theories except in colloquial speech and that's just because of the limited capacity to acknolwedge complexity that militants suffer from, be these academic militants or pub militants. Please understand that all fields have plenty of work that is contradictory and, in any worthy field, there are always _competing_ theories. It doesn't imply "anti" anything. The necessity of GW folk to "discredit" all else is... well, absurd. Honestly, the very thought is absurd in the context of science.

We think preventive action should be taken due to the catatstrophic consequences should the GW trend exist. You think we shouldn't.

One thing is for sure, faith in "GW theories/hypotheses" does not give you telepathic powers.

But I understand your need to create a confrontation for that is what GW is really about.

If you want to know what _I_ think, all _you_ have to do is re-read what I wrote. No need to make anything up, my friend.

And, btw, re-read also what you just wrote... "catatstrophic consequences should the GW trend exist". You don't even know if it "exists" but are sure of its consequences?

Listen, one more time, what those like myself (that apparently you need to think are "against" you) are trying to tell you is that such kind of armagedon talk, that certainty you sport as if nothing, is out of place. In essence, exercise a bit more caution regarding what you commit yourself to. How is it that _you_GW_guys_ are capable of misconstruing this simple advice? What demons are you guys fighting that everything freaks you out, that everything is out to get you? Now, that's a question that should be at the top of your list.

[Quiet One 15]

Hold on, my friend. Not only _any_ given hurricane. No weather prediction whatsoever.

Again, the claim is that climate-wise all is known, explained, etc.

Again, the fact is that weather-wise we are completely lost beyond a very small time-window.

And what you have to offer to rationalize this huge gap in understanding is... what analogy again?

These analogies amount to nothing. First, they are absurd in the context and scale you want to play in. Second, they simply don't apply any more than the one I offered. They are funny, given the discussion, but they are vacuous.

If you consider prediction and explanation trivial... Honestly, do you guys think science is that simple?

And, are you saying now that GW is not a "theory" as Murray claims, but a "hypothesis"? And, what do you mean by "hope of being able to predict"? Now you don't know if GW actually is _able_ to predict but you hope it does?

There no "anti" GW theories except in colloquial speech and that's just because of the limited capacity to acknolwedge complexity that militants suffer from, be these academic militants or pub militants. Please understand that all fields have plenty of work that is contradictory and, in any worthy field, there are always _competing_ theories. It doesn't imply "anti" anything. The necessity of GW folk to "discredit" all else is... well, absurd. Honestly, the very thought is absurd in the context of science.

One thing is for sure, faith in "GW theories/hypotheses" does not give you telepathic powers.

But I understand your need to create a confrontation for that is what GW is really about.

If you want to know what _I_ think, all _you_ have to do is re-read what I wrote. No need to make anything up, my friend.

And, btw, re-read also what you just wrote... "catatstrophic consequences should the GW trend exist". You don't even know if it "exists" but are sure of its consequences?

Listen, one more time, what those like myself (that apparently you need to think are "against" you) are trying to tell you is that such kind of armagedon talk, that certainty you sport as if nothing, is out of place. In essence, exercise a bit more caution regarding what you commit yourself to. How is it that _you_GW_guys_ are capable of misconstruing this simple advice? What demons are you guys fighting that everything freaks you out, that everything is out to get you? Now, that's a question that should be at the top of your list.

Oh, we should establish the Cav Awards, definitely.

Ok, I know the idea is to keep the long replies point by point. I usually love to ramble in my kilometric posts. But, in all honesty, you keep distorting whatever I said in such amount that it will obviously end up being useless. There's a mix of half finished sarcasms there ("you don't know if it exists but you are sure of your consequences?" I don't know if a cure for cancer exists, but I am sure it will bring relief to many ill persons.). You keep mixing up purposedly the differences between global trends and single ocurrences. You keep purposedly hinting at some kind of fundamental linguistical flaw on whether it is a hypothesis or a theory, without giving an explanation for a layman like me on what is the difference or why would it affect our position on such an event.

Hinting that anti GW are "against me" is both projecting your own confrontationist method to my own way of discussing things and misleading. If I am defending the idea that GW should be studied and preemptive measures taken, I am of course "against" people who thinks the opposite, whithin the confines of this debate. The level of aggression/sarcasm is only a reactive response to your own.

[Grabthaw the Hammerslayer 4]

You keep mixing up purposedly the differences between global trends and single ocurrences.

I think I know where Maure is coming from here. Yes I know weather does not = climate, blah, blah, blah... However, if we cannot accurately predict even a week ahead, what hope do we have in looking forward 100 years? Of course the climate is more complex, but the same factors that make predicting the occurence, severity and direction of hurricanes difficult are also shaping longer term weather patterns and make than 1 million times more complex. And it is this conviction that GW supporters have that scientists do understand that make me highly sceptical.

If I am defending the idea that GW should be studied and preemptive measures taken, I am of course "against" people who thinks the opposite, within the confines of this debate.

I also agree that it should be studied, it is the blinkered, sticking fingers in the ears and going la-la-la type attitude that concerns me.

If GW scientists are doing their jobs properly they should be questioning their theories, objectively, rather than just accepting it because the consensus does or because the latest information conflicts with their pet theories.

[Max Mosley 2]

I hope there are enough of these for you to understand i'm not having a dig, I'm just interested

Yup, of course! Hopefully you take my comments the same way.

I'd agree with your comment about transparency, it's one the reasons why I've enjoyed the thread so far. And no, I'm not telling you I knew it was a joke, I meant what I said in that I find all of it interesting, no more, no less. By all of it, I mean the the arguments both sides have, what they use to make their point and the way they put them forward

Yeah but (sorry to labour the point) Chris's petition was simply a joke. It wasn't meant to be taken as proper evidence, although this wasn't clear to me either. The people who made that petition are simply trying to mislead you, and Chris isn't exactly helping matters.

I ask because I'm curious. I'm also curious to hear something from those experts that don't accept GW. Interesting comment on why you're backing your views, I thought you might have backed them purely because you have confidence in them, no matter what 'the other side' are doing.

Well I've been cast in the role of an eco-warrior for the first time in my life. In every debate I've had about this before I've argued that GW is over-rated, but Maure, Chris, Spitfire, Piotr et al are being misleading, and in Maure's case deliberately so.

It is a nice ideal, but I don't accept it's not worth trying to help your children to question concepts, research, opinions and ideas (pls don't take that too literally Murray - the times tables are fine ).

I definitely think it's good to teach kids to question things. The more people can think for themselves the better. But realistically, when the average kid grows up and gets his grade B in GCSE science, he's not going to be able to understand the science of climate modelling in great detail. And even if he could, he's highly unlikely to spend time researching it fully and honestly.

It's the same for everyone. When I buy food, I trust that it's safe to eat. When I'm in hospital, I trust the doctors' diagnosis. When I get my car MOT-ed, I trust the mechanic knew more about cars than I do. Sometimes we do know about some issue, and then it is reasonable to make our own assessments. So if you know about cars you might question the mechanic more than I would. But in those areas where we don't know much, we all have to have some faith in the system.

Your continued use of the 'doctor' analogies are open to question too Muzza, again, most of the time you'd probably be right, but then there are surgeons that have left scissors inside people, surgeons that have been found to have forged credentials, doctors that have prescribed wrong treatment, abused patients and more. And no, off the top of my head I'd say my 8 times table isn't as good as my 2x, but with a calculator I can work out square roots I mean no offence Murray, but that's probably one of the reasons why scientists can sometimes struggle with why the 'average' person doesn't accept their word as gospel, hence they challenge it.

Yeah there are times when the system doesn't work. Sometimes doctors are corrupt, incompetent etc. But the sensible thing to do is to get a range of opinions from doctors, then go with what seems to be the consensus view. Sure, sometimes that means you do the wrong thing. But it will happen less often that way than any other way.

(There are some qualifications: you're a clever guy and maybe you could read up on hundreds of research papers and come to your own conclusions as to the safety and efficacy of the different treatment options. You might possibly have some reason to distrust the majority of doctors. Blah blah blah. But all other things being equal, the points above stand.)

Muzza/Oli you are still playing the "my scientist is cleverer than yours" game. I am not a climate specialist so don't have the detailed knowledge but I, like you can use Google and could almost certainly find yet another study which refutes yours and you would then come back at me with another refuting mine and so we go on.

I'm not playing that game, and I think that's a bit of a cop out tbh. The point is that neither of us are experts, which is precisely why we should look to what the experts say. It is clear that the vast majority of scientists accept GW. I'm not saying that proves we should all jump on command, but I don't see how two non-experts can have a sensible discussion about this when that simple truth keeps getting denied or evaded. This thread was originally about conspiracy theories, and that's really what I'm arguing against. I've never been a GW activist and I probably never will be.

And so instead, I will ask the question again (which you still have not answered) - what exactly are we trying to prevent? What is the evil thing that GW is supposed to do? Why are we doing all this?

What we actually do about the risk of GW is a fair question. Scientists are experts in science - not in what should be done about that science. I've said all along that poverty is a bigger threat. Personally I think all sorts of things are more threatening: dictatorship, religious fanaticism, even racism. All I'm asking is that the skeptics are more reasonable. Maure as usual shows no interest in genuinely thinking about an issue, and the rest of you still refuse to accept some inconvenient facts.

I think I know where Maure is coming from here. Yes I know weather does not = climate, blah, blah, blah... However, if we cannot accurately predict even a week ahead, what hope do we have in looking forward 100 years? Of course the climate is more complex, but the same factors that make predicting the occurence, severity and direction of hurricanes difficult are also shaping longer term weather patterns and make than 1 million times more complex. And it is this conviction that GW supporters have that scientists do understand that make me highly sceptical.

I also agree that it should be studied, it is the blinkered, sticking fingers in the ears and going la-la-la type attitude that concerns me.

If GW scientists are doing their jobs properly they should be questioning their theories, objectively, rather than just accepting it because the consensus does or because the latest information conflicts with their pet theories.

Scientists in general do question their theories. I don't see where this la-la-la attitude has appeared in this thread. Even the IPCC makes probabilistic arguments and assessments, so it's clear that no one is claiming to understand it perfectly. But there is a huge distinction between weather and climate. This is just one example of how science can be confusing. Let's take an example from medicine again. In clinical trials some patients respond better than others, and we cannot predict exactly how well an individual will respond. But we can average out those variations to get a reliable prediction that the drug will improve the typical patient's condition. Or in economics we can't predict exactly how much I will earn in 10 years' time, but we can reliably say that most graduates will earn more than average. The principles involved in predicting average conditions are quite different to those required to predict details.