[Archived] Climate Change

[Steve Moss]

Apparently in the UK climate skeptics' ability to speak their minds will be curtailed: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece

Exactly why should I respect the conclusions of an alleged majority who seem afraid to let a minority air their views?

[Al]

When you realise you are wrong try to shut the opposition up.

[jim mk2]

That criticism is spot-on.

In fact the BBC has been accused of being too fair in giving the climate change deniers and sceptics (spelt with a c) a voice.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage

From my point of view, measures that silence boom- and-bust Nigel Lawson and any of his appalling offspring have to be welcomed.

[Mike E]

This despite 'global cooling' being all the rage only 30-odd years ago?

I don't believe climate change is a man-made phenomenon (I've explained why earlier in the thread). That being said, I'm all for renewable energy over finite energy. Just not because of anything related to climate change or the environment.

The only 'environmental concerns' I have are people spitting and littering.

That criticism is spot-on.

In fact the BBC has been accused of being too fair in giving the climate change deniers and sceptics (spelt with a c) a voice.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/apr/02/mps-criticise-bbc-false-balance-climate-change-coverage

From my point of view, measures that silence boom- and-bust Nigel Lawson and any of his appalling offspring have to be welcomed.

Nigella is by NO means appalling

[perthblue02]

This despite 'global cooling' being all the rage only 30-odd years ago?

I don't believe climate change is a man-made phenomenon (I've explained why earlier in the thread). That being said, I'm all for renewable energy over finite energy. Just not because of anything related to climate change or the environment.

The only 'environmental concerns' I have are people spitting and littering.

Nigella is by NO means appalling

That's true Mike, the thought of her Dad is the last thing on my mind when she is peeling a cucumber

[old darwen blue]

Nigella is appealing not appalling

[Mike E]

That's true Mike, the thought of her Dad is the last thing on my mind when she is peeling a cucumber

She could pickle my gherkin any day!

[Paul]

Apparently in the UK climate skeptics' ability to speak their minds will be curtailed:  http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/environment/article4051905.ece

 

Exactly why should I respect the conclusions of an alleged majority who seem afraid to let a minority air their views?

I can't read the article as I don't subscribe to the Times. However anyone who lives in the UK will know it's not unusual for the BBC to be accused in this way. A House of Commons committee is in no way able to control BBC or other media output so the suggestion our media is to be curtailed is little more than sensationalism on behalf of The Times - and the paper will know that.

We don't have state controlled media so this is a bit of a non-story.

[otto man]

Just a little food for thought.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2597907/Green-smear-campaign-against-professor-dared-disown-sexed-UN-climate-dossier.html

[Steve Moss]

I think its hilarious that most journalists and leaders will form their opinions from an IPCC summary that was written by 200 people, 120 of whom are politicians.

[/sarcasm on] But praise the Lord, the science is settled! [/sarcasm off]

[Guest Norbert]

I can't read the article as I don't subscribe to the Times. However anyone who lives in the UK will know it's not unusual for the BBC to be accused in this way. A House of Commons committee is in no way able to control BBC or other media output so the suggestion our media is to be curtailed is little more than sensationalism on behalf of The Times - and the paper will know that.

We don't have state controlled media so this is a bit of a non-story.

And who owns The Times?

[Paul]

 

And who owns The Times? 

Exactly! I don't have time for that particular rant but it's just another clear example of those who choose to ignore the IPCC grasping at the straws offered by Heartland and Murdoch. Two of the greatest philanthropic organisations on the planet.

I'd believe them every time.

[Al]

Exactly! I don't have time for that particular rant but it's just another clear example of those who choose to ignore the IPCC grasping at the straws offered by Heartland and Murdoch. Two of the greatest philanthropic organisations on the planet.

I'd believe them every time.

They aren't straws they are bloody big rafts and have nothing to do with your two friends.

[Paul]

Not friends of mine Al by a long, long way. The point I was trying to make is that organisations such as Heartland and the Murdoch empire have financial and commercial interests in promoting an opposite view from the IPCC. As a result the validity has to be questionable.

[Al]

Not friends of mine Al by a long, long way. The point I was trying to make is that organisations such as Heartland and the Murdoch empire have financial and commercial interests in promoting an opposite view from the IPCC. As a result the validity has to be questionable.

I know that Paul. We are just on opposite sides of the fence on this one.

[Paul]

True!

[Steve Moss]

Here's an interesting article: http://hotair.com/archives/2014/04/07/are-global-warming-alarmists-just-a-conglomerate-of-eco-radicals-and-third-world-grifters/

I especially liked this:

"No global warming registered for 17 years and 6 months despite all the dire, but apparently scientifically groundless, predictions. The irony, of course, is it is those who have been skeptical of all of this are the one’s called “deniers”. And the alarmists have become so bankrupt and shrill that some of them are calling for the arrest of “deniers.” One supposes since the alarmist cause most closely resembles a religious cult, the call for arrest is on the grounds of heresy … or something."

[jim mk2]

Hot Air is just another rightwing conservative blog and Bruce McQuain is an ex-military neoLibertarian. Both should not be taken seriously and read for amusement only

[Paul]

If we are to believe blogs from gawker.com, whatsup.com and hot air.com it might help if their authors and bloggers learnt how to present arguments in a cogent and intelligent manner without resorting to thinly disguised insults.

I can't help but feel these websites or blogs could be taken a lot more seriously if the authors considered the language used.

I'd be happy to consider the alternatives if the sources had any quality. Steve we have a newspaper called The Sun, it's basically sport, tits and advertisements for supposedly titillating, the weblinks you persist in offering have a similar level of credibility.

If this is the best the anti-warmers can do they will not win their case.

[Steve Moss]

Another well respected scientific mind takes a poke at climate change's so called "consensus"-

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/04/outside_the_consensusnotes_of_.html

[Beta Ray Bill]

Interesting stuff on Cosmos this week in how the leaded petrol brigade denied there was anything amiss for decades even after evidence showed the dangers. Scary that science research funding was threatened when the 'wrong' reports were published.

Lobbyists effectively allowing their self interests to risk life and the environment

Sounds rather familiar.

[only2garners]

Another well respected scientific mind takes a poke at climate change's so called "consensus"-

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/04/outside_the_consensusnotes_of_.html

He may be well respected and even maybe a scientist but he knows nothing professionally about climate change so I can't see how his opinion is any more relevant than yours or mine. It's just another article from a right wing pressure group.

[Steve Moss]

Here's another article in which so-called environmentalists are horrified at the restoration of salmon and orca whales, and the writer points out their hypocrisy. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin/page/0/1

I especially liked this passage:

". . .just as increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have accelerated the rate of plant growth on land (by 14 percent since 1958, according to NASA satellite data), so increased levels of carbon dioxide in the ocean could lead to a massive expansion of flourishing sea life, provided that humans make the missing critical trace elements needed for life available across the vast expanse of the oceans.

The point deserves emphasis. The advent of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere has been a great boon for the terrestrial biosphere, accelerating the rate of growth of both wild and domestic plants and thereby expanding the food base supporting humans and land animals of every type. Ignoring this, the carbophobes point to the ocean instead, saying that increased levels of carbon dioxide not exploited by biology could lead to acidification. By making the currently barren oceans fertile, however, mariculture would transform this putative problem into an extraordinary opportunity.

Which is precisely why those demanding restraints on carbon emissions and restrictions on fisheries hate mariculture. They hate it for the same reason those demanding constraints in the name of allegedly limited energy resources hate nuclear power. They hate it because it solves a problem they need unsolved.

The ultimate question comes down to this: Are humans creators or destroyers? If it is accepted that we are simply agents of destruction, consuming or ruining resources that existed before we came, then it follows that human activities, numbers, and liberties must be severely constrained and that someone must be empowered to do the constraining. On the other hand, if it is understood that humanity is fundamentally a creative force, that we invent resources and improve the world — unleashing abundance, lighting the night, ridding continents of pestilence, and bringing barren oceans to life — then it becomes clear that the essential mission of government is not to limit liberty, but to defend it at all costs."

He may be well respected and even maybe a scientist but he knows nothing professionally about climate change so I can't see how his opinion is any more relevant than yours or mine. It's just another article from a right wing pressure group.

One doesn't need to be a specialist in climate change to make a note of observed political pressure and deviation from traditional, unbiased scientific standards.

Galileo was a skeptic of the "consensus" and was silenced for his pains. It appears that the Church of Catastrophic Climate Change would also like to silence its critics.

[Adam C]

The ultimate question comes down to this: Are humans creators or destroyers? If it is accepted that we are simply agents of destruction, consuming or ruining resources that existed before we came, then it follows that human activities, numbers, and liberties must be severely constrained and that someone must be empowered to do the constraining. On the other hand, if it is understood that humanity is fundamentally a creative force, that we invent resources and improve the world — unleashing abundance, lighting the night, ridding continents of pestilence, and bringing barren oceans to life — then it becomes clear that the essential mission of government is not to limit liberty, but to defend it at all costs."

It flies in the face of reason to suggest that humans are a creative force regarding biodiversity and the planet's resources.

Unleashing abundance - not for any species other than humanity. In fact we have wiped other species out in desire for their pretty skins, destroyed habitats and treated the other inhabitants of our planet with contempt and brutality.

Lighting the night - This has no relevance whatsoever to the rest of the planet. Just humans. In no way is it creative or helpful to the rest of the planet (maybe moths?) that we burn fossil fuels to keep the lights on.

Ridding continents of pestilence - to the benefit of no other species but our own. In a speculative sense we may be responsible for our own downfall eventually through our over-use of antibiotics and untamed spread across the entire globe. Both are conducive to an eventual super pandemic.

Bringing barren oceans to life - this is a new one on me, I wasn't aware of one single barren ocean in the history of planet earth. We have fished many species to near extinction (and beyond) and even today hunt the next most intelligent species to us in oceans across the world. In addition we pollute and pillage any oceanic resources we can get our hands on.

The truth is we have been blessed (or cursed) with consciousness and intelligence far surpassing any other life form on the planet. Therefore we can see the effects of our unprecedented domination of the earth. As the renowned philosopher and sage Stan Lee would have it "with great power comes great responsibility".

Who knows if we are going to be the major cause for what is looking like a serious global catastrophe in the future. What I do know is that we are not doing anywhere near enough to try to avoid it.

[Paul]

Here's another article in which so-called environmentalists are horrified at the restoration of salmon and orca whales, and the writer points out their hypocrisy.  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/376258/pacifics-salmon-are-back-thank-human-ingenuity-robert-zubrin/page/0/1

 

I especially liked this passage:

 

". . .just as increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have accelerated the rate of plant growth on land (by 14 percent since 1958, according to NASA satellite data), so increased levels of carbon dioxide in the ocean could lead to a massive expansion of flourishing sea life, provided that humans make the missing critical trace elements needed for life available across the vast expanse of the oceans.

 

The point deserves emphasis. The advent of higher carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere has been a great boon for the terrestrial biosphere, accelerating the rate of growth of both wild and domestic plants and thereby expanding the food base supporting humans and land animals of every type.

Interesting sweeping generalisation without giving any detail. I'm clearly not going to argue the NASA data but I think it worthwhile mentioning increased plant growth is only of value if the right, that is commercially valuable crops benefit, and other conditions are favourable.

90% + of the world biomass is made up of C3 plants (this is a type of carbon fixation in photosynthesis). To grow successfully and benefit from increased CO2 these plants require moderate temperatures, good groundwater levels and average sunlight levels. Rice and barley are two examples of C3 plants of commercial importance. Clearly to vital crops for the world.

Two questions to be answered by those posting CO2 increase is z benefit as it results in increased plant growth:

Which commercially significant crops are grown in suitable areas to benefit from this increased growth?

Secondly increased growth does not necessarily equate to increased crop yield. This is more usually manipulated via fertilisation. Certainly under controlled growing conditions, glasshouse tomatoes for example, increased CO2 levels are a contributor to increased crop yield. Please provide data to demonstrate increased CO2 levels are directly influencing crop yields in the field.

Or do we simply have bigger plants producing similar crop yields - mire likely in my view.

It does seem a touch questionable to chuck a load of trace elements into the oceans. Tricky to control their distribution and potential long term impact.