[Archived] Climate Change

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

I'll make it simple. Polling scientists is no way to make decisions. 500 hundred years ago they'd tell you the Sun circled the Earth. Nothing has changed. People, including scientists, kow-tow to authority. Be an Englishman. Think for yourself. Don't consult the polls.

If at the end of the day, you think "climate change" is real, and requires government action, fair enough. I'll think you're wrong. But be a man and state that as your own opinion and not the opinion of x% of supposed experts.

Polling scientists is probably the best way to make decisions! The discipline of science inherently imposes stringent checks on itself before believing anything it says. Unlike politics, someone doesn't just announce "a new way of thinking" or whatever and gain millions of bandwagon jumpers. If you want a new way of thinking then you prove it, and prove it again, and do that a few more hundred times and then your proposal starts to gain ground.

500 years ago some scientists would tell you the sun circled the earth, some would say they didn't know. Every single person in a position of power would demand the sun circled the earth. In 2015 large proportions of non-scientists believe in total bull**** such as astrology, psychics, magic, UFOs, scientology, homeopathy etc. Science doesn't know everything and sometimes makes mistakes but it makes thousands of times more of an effort to be right than other sections of society do with what they declare.

And quite apart from science, its daft in any field to value your own opinion based on gut feeling over the experts opinion, especially if the experts are virtually unanimous in agreement. That's the mode of thinking that results in football fans chanting to the manager which formation to play and which substitutes to bring on, as ours often painfully embarrassingly did with Big Sam.

[Steve Moss]

Polling scientists is probably the best way to make decisions! The discipline of science inherently imposes stringent checks on itself before believing anything it says. Unlike politics, someone doesn't just announce "a new way of thinking" or whatever and gain millions of bandwagon jumpers. If you want a new way of thinking then you prove it, and prove it again, and do that a few more hundred times and then your proposal starts to gain ground.

500 years ago some scientists would tell you the sun circled the earth, some would say they didn't know. Every single person in a position of power would demand the sun circled the earth. In 2015 large proportions of non-scientists believe in total bull**** such as astrology, psychics, magic, UFOs, scientology, homeopathy etc. Science doesn't know everything and sometimes makes mistakes but it makes thousands of times more of an effort to be right than other sections of society do with what they declare.

And quite apart from science, its daft in any field to value your own opinion based on gut feeling over the experts opinion, especially if the experts are virtually unanimous in agreement. That's the mode of thinking that results in football fans chanting to the manager which formation to play and which substitutes to bring on, as ours often painfully embarrassingly did with Big Sam.

I don't base my opinions on "gut feelings".

I base it on the fact that the people making policy due to climate change are making it based on the executive summaries, which were compiled by scientists AND politicians.

I base it on the fact that those who are screaming the end is nigh unless we stop carbon, are the same people jet setting around the world ad nauseum.

I base it on the fact that the models which "support" climate change are consistently wrong, but our supposed brain trust continue to sing from the same hymnal.

I base it on the fact that those who demand change in light of climate change want more money and more power, which makes me distrust their motives.

I base it on the fact that there are many eminent scientists who have protested the current hypothesis of harmful man made climate change, and the alleged cures for that alleged problem, but rather than debate the issue the proponents of climate change point and shriek. That's not the behavior of scientists interested in science.

I base it on the fact that those who claim we are doomed, refuse to release the underlying data. If it is "science", all data and assumptions must be released so the hypothesis can be tested again, again and again. They aren't which means something stinks.

I base it on the fact that we are currently in an ICE AGE (albeit in inter glacial period of an ice age that began over 2 million years ago). So yes, we will get warmer. And we will also get colder. It's part of the natural cycle.

There are other reasons which I am doubtless forgetting. But I'm not inclined to take things on faith. And not matter how many robed and bejeweled members of the modern priesthood say "Trust me, we took a poll", I elect to think for myself.

[Mike E]

The only thing stopping me believing Global Warming is a threat (not climate change, which happens anyway) is that just 30 years ago, Global Cooling was the environmental threat that scientific consensus warned of.

What will it be in 2050?

[Paul]

I think you're on the wrong track Mike. The scientific community didn't support the hypothesis:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Whereas 97% of the scientific community do support the idea of global warming and climate change.

[Mike E]

Fair play Paul. I just recall several TV programmes I'd been shown in Geology lessons promoting that viewpoint

[ultrablue]

Great news on the Paris Agreement. When do you ever get that many countries to agree on anything?

There will be bumps on the way. I'm sure the big boys will stray from the requirements occasionally, but the march towards cleaner, alternative fuel sources has just been sped up considerably.

[Steve Moss]

Great news on the Paris Agreement. When do you ever get that many countries to agree on anything?

There will be bumps on the way. I'm sure the big boys will stray from the requirements occasionally, but the march towards cleaner, alternative fuel sources has just been sped up considerably.

From the standpoint of America, President Obama's signature is virtually worthless. The Republicans won't fund the "deal", so money won't be forthcoming. And the next President can tear it up, as Obama's signature does not bind future Presidents.

Not to mention the whole thing is based on manipulated data. It looks more like a ploy to get more funding for the third world that any real desire to combat climate change.

[Guest]

And the next President can tear it up, as Obama's signature does not bind future Presidents.

I'm not sure Hillary will be wanting to do that.

[jim mk2]

The US is shadow of its former self and now leads the world only in areas like gun violence, obesity, military spending and of course the denial of climate change. There is hope though. With the Republicans in the form of Trump at present unelectable, the Democrats will be returned to the White House and both Clinton and Sanders are firmly committed to the Paris agreement.

[BlueMonday]

Sometimes this debate can resemble rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

wether its man made or not, ave global temperatures are rising at the moment, ice caps are shrinking, there is more water circulating, and weather is becoming more extreme.

We have to react and plan for this.

Controlling Carbon output makes long term sense. Developing clean energy sources makes sense. Planning for extreme weather events makes sense.

Saying feck it, its nothing to do with us or we can't control it is reckless.

http://gu.com/p/4f5gc/sbl

[Steve Moss]

Sometimes this debate can resemble rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

wether its man made or not, ave global temperatures are rising at the moment, ice caps are shrinking, there is more water circulating, and weather is becoming more extreme.

We have to react and plan for this.

Controlling Carbon output makes long term sense. Developing clean energy sources makes sense. Planning for extreme weather events makes sense.

Saying feck it, its nothing to do with us or we can't control it is reckless.

http://gu.com/p/4f5gc/sbl

The Arctic was once tropical. The sea levels were once 200 feet higher. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

The world changes. To think we can control it, is pure hubris.

That said, I like the idea of alternative energy. Mostly because I like energy, the more the better (and the more we have, the cheaper it is and the less reliant on people who are not necessarily our friends, the better).

But the whole give government more control because of climate change argument is pure drivel.

[jim mk2]

Sometimes this debate can resemble rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

wether its man made or not, ave global temperatures are rising at the moment, ice caps are shrinking, there is more water circulating, and weather is becoming more extreme.

We have to react and plan for this.

Controlling Carbon output makes long term sense. Developing clean energy sources makes sense. Planning for extreme weather events makes sense.

Saying feck it, its nothing to do with us or we can't control it is reckless.

http://gu.com/p/4f5gc/sbl

The world's climate is changing. and man is responsible for much of it.

Or the climate has always changed, and there's nothing you can do about it.

It depends who you think is correct: the world's leading scientists or head-in-the-sand conservatives led by people like this

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/05/the-republican-party-stands-alone-in-climate-denial

No choice, is it really ?

[BlueMonday]

I guess what Im saying is we should limit what we could possibly be doing to adversely affect climate, because that makes long term sense. Even though long term climate change will happen anyway, albeit over long time frames.

We can only plan for natural long term climate change, i.e. Disaster Management planning, storm proofing, flood defences, infrastructure investment, water efficiency etc.

Either way, doing nothing/not changing is not an option.

[Steve Kean's Hypnotoad]

It depends who you think is correct: the world's leading scientists or head-in-the-sand conservatives led by people like this

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/oct/05/the-republican-party-stands-alone-in-climate-denial

"Republicans are the only climate-denying conservative party in the world"

I know its probably obvious to everyone man and his dog on here by now that you are as politically biased as its possible to be but just thought I'd include that fact from your own source in case anyone was duped into your introduction to it, which implied conservatives are climate-change deniers en masse, led by the US Republican party. Rather than the views of the US Republican party go against every single other conservative party on the planet.

[K-Hod]

"Republicans are the only climate-denying conservative party in the world"

I know its probably obvious to everyone man and his dog on here by now that you are as politically biased as its possible to be but just thought I'd include that fact from your own source in case anyone was duped into your introduction to it, which implied conservatives are climate-change deniers en masse, led by the US Republican party. Rather than the views of the US Republican party go against every single other conservative party on the planet.

Whilst I'd agree Jim is biased, I'd say there are plenty of rivals for that title!

[Steve Moss]

Whilst I'd agree Jim is biased, I'd say there are plenty of rivals for that title!

What would we be without our biases? Jim is biased, as am I, but so what? If we know each other's perspectives we can account for behavior/viewpoint and accept or reject it as we chose.

Besides, Jim knows his soccer (football) so it really doesn't matter that much to me that he's a Marxist sympathizer.

And besides, I find it vaguely amusing that the liberals are now the conforming believers in government and that it is the Republicans who are the cutting edge cynics who question authority. How times change.

[jim mk2]

"Republicans are the only climate-denying conservative party in the world"

I know its probably obvious to everyone man and his dog on here by now that you are as politically biased as its possible to be but just thought I'd include that fact from your own source in case anyone was duped into your introduction to it, which implied conservatives are climate-change deniers en masse, led by the US Republican party. Rather than the views of the US Republican party go against every single other conservative party on the planet.

The Guardian disproves its own story below but don't let that get in the way of your own political bias.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/sep/10/climate-scepticism-still-rife-among-tory-mps-poll

What would we be without our biases? Jim is biased, as am I, but so what? If we know each other's perspectives we can account for behavior/viewpoint and accept or reject it as we chose.

Besides, Jim knows his soccer (football) so it really doesn't matter that much to me that he's a Marxist sympathizer.

And besides, I find it vaguely amusing that the liberals are now the conforming believers in government and that it is the Republicans who are the cutting edge cynics who question authority. How times change.

I regard that as a slur. Marxists are far too right wing.

[BlueMonday]

Bias, point of view, opinion, view, leaning, outlook, disposition.

[Steve Moss]

So much for there being a scientific consensus on man made climate change.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/

[Pedro]

I wonder if the lack of pollution in the air actually increases the temperatures, evaporation and messes with the water cycle. The sun seems much less yellow/orange as it did when I was a kid - when the sky was full of lead, smoke and God knows what else!

[jim mk2]

Forbes is a neo-liberal right wing magazine aimed at the elite fewer than 1 per cent, most of whom have earned their wealth through exploiting people or the planet, and probably both.

Its views should be ignored.

[ABBEY]

I blame Jordan Rhodes for this crazy weather

[Pedro]

I blame Jordan Rhodes for this crazy weather

Hater.

[ABBEY]

I know !

[adopted scouser]

I blame Paul Lambert and his team. We have all been sunbathing if Bowyer had still been here