Global Warming, just a hoax?

[LakeGeneve]

There are enough arguments against the human effect to make it doubtful.

I beg to differ on that one. Still looking for something vaguely credible. Everytime I read another naysayer website i get about halfway through before giving up in giggles.

Earth's temperatures have been rising(on average) for about 16,000 years.... what was man doing to the earth then?

About 12,000 years ago there was a cold snap that lasted 1400 years... temperatures dropped 7 degrees in 20 years. The average temperature in England was -5. Glaciers formed...

The earth changes... it's life. We've been active on the planet for a tiny speck of time. We're f*ck all in the grand scheme of things. We're sitting around looking at 0.1 of a degree rise in temperature like it's the end of the world. We're panicking because sea level might rise 3 inches in the next 150 years.

I agree with we the sentiment that we are a speck of dust in the universe but we are supposed to have something with gives us the abilility to attain enlightenment. So they tell me anyway.

I think the range of temp suggested is much higher than .01 , at least 1 degree by the IPCC, and your misleading by just mentioning 3 inches when .80 cms has been stated at the higher end. But 3 inches is still very scary if your living in a low lying island or a delta region.

There have been long warm spells and cold spells during these periods - 4000-2500 years ago was pretty chilly. The Dark Ages had a bleak spell too.

About 1000-1300 AD it was the warmest it had been for 400 years - what caused that?

Stop looking at 140 years and start looking at thousands and millions of years. What's the point? It can't be stopped - it's the next Sky-Is-Falling-Down scaremongering and guilt-inducing crap we're fed constantly.

Knowledge about the earth, ecosystems and all living beings has increased how many fold in the last 140 yrs? Compare that to the previous 5000 and one would hope we understand a little more about what is going on. In the last 140 years the worlds pop has gone from a billion plus to 6.4 billion and our lifestyles, and lifestyle aspirations, seemed to have changed a little which is the more important point, ie. carrying capacity, so they has to be some impact. We also seemed to have changed the earths landscape quite a bit in the last 100 years so why does that not have any impact?

I think the timescale issue is about the fact that climate changes are occuring in such a short timespan! Not 10,000 years, nor 1000 years, not even a few hundred but perhaps less than 100! Surely unprecedented save for a meteor event or large volcanic explosion?

Who is trying to make you feel guilty Dave? Is the principle of us taking some responsibility not about giving the next generation a chance or a better quality of life.

And what about those who are poor and generally don't have a say or have the opportunity to just move if their village is affected, eg. some pacific islands like Tuvalu and lowland areas in any delta of any country for those who live from day to day. Don't we have some responsibility to them? Those who would could only dream at the SOUND of dancing the night away at some fancy nightclub with a 19 m LED screen on Patong beach .

I'm guessing in 10 years time, we won't be discussing Global Warming (just as we're no longer discussing the next Ice Age, Y2K or any of the other End-Of-The-World-Scenarios).

I am guessing that in 10 years time we will be saying, 'why the **** did we not do anything?,' and the poor and young will be saying, 'you selfish bastards';

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/what-will-we-tell-the-next-generation-20090426-ajcj.html?page=-1

10 years ago greenhouse gases were the concern and they still are, 10 years before that, ozone and deforestation. Ozone was pretty much solved with the Montreal Protocol but the complete recovery of the ozone layer will not occur until 2050 at the earliest. The remedy lag time seems to be an issue. There is a good lesson there.

It'll be mutants. Or Artifical Intelligence. Or some other band wagon for scientists and politicians to use to get their names in the paper.

And who is the champion of the Global Warming hysteria?

Al Gore - who's last big stand was against the Devil's Rock music. Now who's giggling?

You guys feel free to run around panicking and worrying yourself sick (but not ACTUALLY doing anything). Me? I'll live out my life eating red meat, drinking beer, and lying in UV rays... maybe it'll kill me... but at least I won't die of Science-Induced-Stress.

No one is panicking and really the scenarios painted here are pretty lame compared to what could be discussed. Most of us have the luxury of being somewhat insular to the consequences as we are not at the sharp end as some of the poor are or those living in the Maldives if sea levels rise just a few centimeters in the next few decades.

Some are trying to change their lifestyles, reduce their carbon footprint and living with a bit more respect for the planet. Little things help and finally public policy is slowly shifting for those govts that count. One of the realities in this is perhaps that we may all have to accept in this debate is that we cannot be isolated, selfish pricks just thinking of ourselves and how to indulge ourselves.

None of us are pure and blameless, I know I have a bloody large carbon footprint which I am gradually decreasing (probably too slowly). No one is saying you cannot eat meat, drink beer, ride your motorbike, take a flight or manage a nightclub on the beach. However, we can all look at the bigger picture and start adjusting some aspects of our lifestyle while we still have the illusion of choice, many others don't and won't. I am just surprised that you don't at least consider the POSSIBILITY based on all the available information that you, I and everyone may have an impact on climate change.

I don't have kids but I have many friends with children. I often think about their future and what sort of planet we will all leave them. They might want you to consider the possibility that human acitivity does have an impact on climate change as well. AT the very least, as the recent banking crisis has shown, we all cannot live beyond our means and expect the next generation to pick up the bill.

[Stramash]

This may seem as if going vastly off topic, but bear with me, read the following article (by George Monbiot in the Guardian 7/2/06) and come back to the points I make after it...

Three weeks ago, while looking for something else, I came across one of the most extraordinary documents I have ever read. It relates to an organisation called Arise (Associates for Research into the Science of Enjoyment). Though largely forgotten today, in the 1990s it was one of the world's most influential public-health groups. First I should explain what it claimed to stand for.

Arise, founded in 1988, seems to have been active until 2004. It described itself as "a worldwide association of eminent scientists who act as independent commentators". Its purpose, these eminent scientists said, was to show how "everyday pleasures, such as eating chocolate, smoking, drinking tea, coffee and alcohol, contribute to the quality of life".

It maintained that there were good reasons for dropping our inhibitions and indulging ourselves. "Scientific studies show that enjoying the simple pleasures in life, without feeling guilty, can reduce stress and increase resistance to disease ... Conversely, guilt can increase stress and undermine the immune system ... This can lead to, for instance, forgetfulness, eating disorders, heart problems or brain damage." The "health police", as Arise sometimes called them, could be causing more harm than good.

Arise received an astonishing amount of coverage. Between September 1993 and March 1994, for example, it generated 195 newspaper articles and radio and television interviews, in places such as the Wall Street Journal, the International Herald Tribune, the Independent, the Evening Standard, El País, La Repubblica, Rai and the BBC. Much of this coverage resulted from a Mori poll, called Naughty but Nice, that Arise claimed to have commissioned, into the guilty pleasures people enjoyed most. Here is a typical example (this one from Reuters):

"Puritanical health workers who dictate whether people should smoke or drink alcohol and coffee are trying to ruin the quality of life, a group of academics said ... 'Many of us hold the view that it is a person's right to enjoy these pleasures ...' said Professor David Warburton, a professor of pharmacology at Reading University in England ... 'Much of health promotion is based on misinformation. It is politically driven'."

The Today programme gave Warburton an uncontested interview in its prime spot - at 8.20am. He extolled the calming properties of cigarettes and poured scorn on public-health messages. Arise has also featured eight times in the Guardian. Coverage like this continued until October 2004, when the Times repeated Arise's claim that we should stop "worrying about often ill-founded health scares" and "listen to our bodies, which naturally seek to protect themselves from disease by doing the things we enjoy." In hundreds of articles and transcripts covering its claims, I have found just one instance of a journalist - Madeleine Bunting in the Guardian - questioning either Arise's science or the motivation of the scientists.

Warburton, who claimed to run the group, was head of psychopharmacology at the University of Reading. While Arise was active he published at least a dozen articles on nicotine in the academic press. In 1989, in the Psychologist, he mocked the US surgeon general's finding that nicotine is addictive. Most of his articles were published in the journal Psychopharmacology, of which he was a senior editor. They maintained that nicotine improved both attention and memory. I have read seven of these papers. On none of them could I find a declaration of financial interests, except for two grants from the Wellcome Trust.

In 1998, as part of a settlement of a class action against the tobacco companies in the US, the firms were obliged to place their internal documents in a public archive. Among them is the one I came across last month. It is a memo from an executive in the corporate services department of Philip Morris - the world's largest tobacco company - to one of her colleagues. The title is "Arise 1994-95 Activities and Funding". "I had a meeting," she began, "with Charles Hay and Jacqui Smithson (Rothmans) to agree on the 1994-1995 activity plan for Arise and to discuss the funding needed. Enclosed is a copy of our presentation."

This showed that in the previous financial year Arise had received $373,400: $2,000 from Coca-Cola, $900 from other firms and the rest - over 99% - from Philip Morris, British American Tobacco, RJ Reynolds and Rothmans. In 1994-95 its budget would be $773,750. Rothmans and RJ Reynolds had each committed to provide $200,000, and BAT "has also shown interest". She suggested that Philip Morris put up $300,000. Then the memo becomes even more interesting.

"The previous 'Naughty but Nice' Mori poll proved to be very effective in getting wide media coverage. The exercise will be repeated this year on the theme of 'Stress in the Workplace' ... A draft questionnaire was already submitted to [Tony Andrade, Philip Morris's senior lawyer] and [Matt Winokur, its director of regulatory affairs] for comments." "We decided to hold" Arise's next conference in Europe, it continued, because of "positive European media coverage". Philip Morris had appointed a London PR agency to run the media operation, set up Arise's secretariat and help to recruit new members. Arise's "major spending authorisation and approval would be handled by an 'informal' Budget Committee involving PM, Rothmans and possibly RJR and BAT".

The memo suggests Arise was run not by eminent scientists but by eminent tobacco companies. This impression is reinforced by another document in the tobacco archive, which explains how the group began. "In 1988 the US Surgeon General said: 'Nicotine was as addictive as heroin or cocaine.' The industry responded. A group of academics was identified and called together to: - review the science of substance abuse, - separate nicotine from these substances".

I sent a list of questions to Warburton, but he told me that he did not have time to answer them. Reading University replied that it knew Warburton's work had been sponsored by the tobacco companies. Indeed, the university itself had received over £300,000 from Arise, but "from the university's standpoint, the source of funding for Arise has always been vague". It revealed that "Professor Warburton and the University of Reading were in receipt of BAT research funding between 1995 and 2003". But at no time had it questioned this funding or sought to oblige Warburton to declare his interests in academic papers. Astonishingly, it suggested that this would amount to "censorship" and "restricting academic freedom".

The journal Psychopharmacology told me it was unaware Warburton had been taking money from tobacco firms. "It is an author's responsibility to disclose sources of funding, and widely understood that journals themselves do not expect to police this declaration." After a long career untroubled by questions about his interests or professional ethics, Warburton retired in 2003. He still lectures at Reading as an emeritus professor.

How much more science is being published in academic journals with undeclared interests like these? How many more media campaigns against "overregulation", the "compensation culture" or "unfounded public fears" have been secretly funded and steered by corporations? How many more undeclared recipients of corporate money have been appearing on the Today programme, providing free public relations for their sponsors? This case suggests that academia and the media have failed dismally to exercise sufficient scepticism. Surely there is one obvious question with which every journal and every journalist should begin. "Who's funding you?"

The reason I wanted to post this was to draw attention to how little you can take ANY research in ANY field at purely it's face value, it's summary, or indeed its published findings. In order to see the true validity of any research you not only have to scratch below the surface, but sometimes dig deep down.

Contrary to the opinions of some, academia is not a sector rolling in cash or making millionaires of all. In reality it is a cutthroat, often desperate world where scientists, researchers and institutions will battle for what funding is available. And often the reality is that the original funding may come from organisations who have a real and vested interest in that research (from a commercial perspective) and who will make that interest clear when handing out the cheques. In order to retain that funding and often the promise of future funding, some researchers will design the protocols of their research to give a bias towards the desired results.

Were it not for the requirements of a US class action suit against the tobacco companies, the true funding of ARISE may never have come out. And a supposedly respected and honest Professor of Psychopharmacology, and indeed editor of one of the principal publications on the subject, would have continued to publish pseudo-research refuting claims made by other respected bodies (in this case the surgeon general of the US amongst many others)

Now I am in no way stating that all research is flawed in this respect, but all research must be viewed with initial suspicion until the funding tree is fully transparent.

And certainly, finally returning to thread topic, there is much of the research on climate change, from both sides of the argument, that will have these problems inherent in them. Someone, I think it was Dave, stated earlier that the whole argument was a cash cow for climatologists. I would disagree; climatologists, at the end of the day, are merely academics, and though it is their words that are most often bandied about in the debate, they are still only foot soldiers for the true investors, and profit seekers, in the whole debate.

'Green' energy is possibly the fastest growing industrial sector today, and it is in these groups interests (and remembering, just cos they have the tag 'green' does not mean they are a mom and pop outfit operating from an organic farm in Arkansas), for the governments of the world to take the worst case scenario hypotheses seriously, and to pass laws supporting their 'technology' as well as often giving huge grants for r+d or development. And equally, on the other side of the argument, are the corporate giants still with both feet in the fossil fuel and high carbon emitting sectors.

So the cash cows are rolling in on all sides, but the real big winners are the lobbyists and corporations themselves, rather than the guys typing up a 10,000 word paper.

Dave, one point I will criticise you is that you keep seem to be arguing that man has not caused global warming. I think you will find that most who agree that GW is a problem would agree with you. I have seen very little literature that says man has caused it. Where there seems to be agreement is that it is part of a natural cycle of the planet, but that man, and in particular the high levels of fossil fuels used since the onset of the industrial revolution, has accelerated that process. Where the unknown comes in is whether this man produced acceleration will progress the cycle beyond the point where it is in nature's power to cope with. A bit like sticking a Ferrari engine in a Lada body; we know the car will go faster for a while, but there is that potential for the car falling apart at some point as it can't cope with the stresses produced by the engine. A simple analogy perhaps, but one that seems to fit.

Now I know you can't expect everyone to go off and read funding lists and check records at companies house, nor can you expect people to go off and employ boolean operators to double check similar research and do comparisons. If that started on TF, it would become as dry as Thaivisa.

But don't take everything at face value. Just because someone has 8 letters after their name, or they have won a Nobel prize for Literature, does not qualify them as the ultimate expert.

Again, as LG says, do you really want to take the chance that you're wrong?

Nightmare scenario; you ARE wrong, global warming causes sea levels to rise dramatically. The world ends up like Kevin Costner's 'Waterworld'. Do you really want that??

:twisted:

[farang_subson]

Why do you bother, Zeus?

When folks start coughing up tropes like:

*the entire process of science is hopelessly politically biased

*that "scientists can be wrong too"

*that they don't wish to be stressed out by the evidence

*that the world is just too big and old for humans to make a difference

...it's shorthand for "I'm impervious to evidence and I'll never change my mind".

It's no coincidence that evolution denial and AGW denial often go hand in hand. Both are fields that require folks to integrate a large body of evidence, jigsaw-like. For some, the only "believable" science is the kind that produces tangible goodies like computer chips.

[grezzzy_greer]

There seems to be a lot said and debated as to whether Global Warming is (or ever was) a hoax. I have often wondered how one would go about faking immese climate change all over the world...but I suspect that if it was for "political or financial" reasons, the hoax would perhaps cost a little more than any hoped-for financial or political gain...somewhere in the region of...oh...maybe several billion times more...and thats if we had the technology that would allow us to fake it. This is not something that is being made up by the media, people who don't even have TV, radio, papers etc, are being affected...

As to the question of "who caused it?" - why is that relevant at all - its happening - whether you like it or not - so now its just a case of what we do to survive the changes, and minimise the impact on human life.

By the way - do this:

Get a glass - put some water in it, then add a couple of ice-blocks so that they float freely. Now mark the water level on the side, and wait for the ice to melt...it will be exactly the same level (excluding loss due to evaporation) as when they were ice-blocks - this is because the mass of water displaced by the mass of ice remains the same even of course after the ice returns to a liquid state.

The problem of rising sea levels is NOT feared as a result of melting SEA ICE - it is expected as a result of melting GLACIAL ICE which is currently sitting on the LAND.

[eagle]

Grezzzy wrote:

The problem of rising sea levels is NOT feared as a result of melting SEA ICE - it is expected as a result of melting GLACIAL ICE which is currently sitting on the LAND.

I just heard that at the rate glaciers are melting they will be all gone in about 15 years. Alaska is going fast and the Himalayas are too.

Island dwellers are finding their homes under water and having to sand bag their streets. for years now. Ask them about global warming.

[English_Bob]

And what about those who are poor and generally don't have a say or have the opportunity to just move if their village is affected, eg. some pacific islands like Tuvalu and lowland areas in any delta of any country for those who live from day to day. Don't we have some responsibility to them? Those who would could only dream at the SOUND of dancing the night away at some fancy nightclub with a 19 m LED screen on Patong beach .

.

Again? My job is dragged into this debate?

What point are you making?

Do you think you have special, insider knowledge?

I think you'll find most contributors on these forums know exactly who I am.

There's an old saying, 'If you don't have the facts, attack the messenger.'

Let me explain my POV in simple words for those who don't read too well...

1 Global warming is a fact.

2 I think it's part of a natural cycle.

3 There are more important problems to fix. Money spent on GW would be better spent on these.

4 I think scientific research is biased and attention-seeking trying to get funding.

5 Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points.

[Guest FLGlenn]

If you can not control global warming, accept it and let it go.

[eagle]

English Bob wrote

Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points

I think thats propaganda from businesses who don't want the environment getting in the way of them making money. I hear it all the time and I don't think there is a conspiracy against businessmen, but there is a political party who wants you to like them because they will help keep pollution standards low so you can make money.

[Neo]

There are enough arguments against the human effect to make it doubtful.

I beg to differ on that one. Still looking for something vaguely credible. Everytime I read another naysayer website i get about halfway through before giving up in giggles.

Earth's temperatures have been rising(on average) for about 16,000 years.... what was man doing to the earth then?

About 12,000 years ago there was a cold snap that lasted 1400 years... temperatures dropped 7 degrees in 20 years. The average temperature in England was -5. Glaciers formed...

The earth changes... it's life. We've been active on the planet for a tiny speck of time. We're f*ck all in the grand scheme of things. We're sitting around looking at 0.1 of a degree rise in temperature like it's the end of the world. We're panicking because sea level might rise 3 inches in the next 150 years.

There have been long warm spells and cold spells during these periods - 4000-2500 years ago was pretty chilly. The Dark Ages had a bleak spell too.

About 1000-1300 AD it was the warmest it had been for 400 years - what caused that?

Stop looking at 140 years and start looking at thousands and millions of years. What's the point? It can't be stopped - it's the next Sky-Is-Falling-Down scaremongering and guilt-inducing crap we're fed constantly.

I'm guessing in 10 years time, we won't be discussing Global Warming (just as we're no longer discussing the next Ice Age, Y2K or any of the other End-Of-The-World-Scenarios).

It'll be mutants. Or Artifical Intelligence. Or some other band wagon for scientists and politicians to use to get their names in the paper.

And who is the champion of the Global Warming hysteria?

Al Gore - who's last big stand was against the Devil's Rock music. Now who's giggling?

You guys feel free to run around panicking and worrying yourself sick (but not ACTUALLY doing anything). Me? I'll live out my life eating red meat, drinking beer, and lying in UV rays... maybe it'll kill me... but at least I won't die of Science-Induced-Stress.

I've already checked the the points you've raised. Medieval warming period, ice ages, are tyipcal red-herrings and only convincing if you don' read enough research based on these facts. The point is that the changes in temperature match the changes in greenhouse gasses and only when you include the contribution from us. Still haven't seen any disproof of that simple hypothesis. You may be right about "it can't be stopped", but if the scientists are right and we caused it, then they may also be right about us being able to bring the Earth back from the brink of runaway climate change.

Al Gore may be somehting of a champion of global warming hesteria but he doesnt carry much weight with scientists since he used biased interpretations of climate change data. The people to listen to are the climatologists. They have solid theories that match the data, and they are more scary than any politician.

[English_Bob]

English Bob wrote

Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points

I think thats propaganda from businesses who don't want the environment getting in the way of them making money. I hear it all the time and I don't think there is a conspiracy against businessmen, but there is a political party who wants you to like them because they will help keep pollution standards low so you can make money.

Why isn't it propaganda from pipe-smoking, anti-globalisation, lefty, beard-wearing scientists who hate big industry?

The fact is, that while it's cool and trendy to hate the big corporations, we all use their electricity, oil, chemicals and plastics. I enjoy flying to far off destinations. I like cheap electricity to cool my room, warm my food and watch my TV. (And so do the rest of you drum-beating, whinging armchair environmentalists)

If you REALLY believe all the stuff you're posting, do something about it - change your lifestyle completely. Go and live in a wooden shack (made from renewable timber). Eat fruit that falls from the tree. Eat only stuff that can be carried by hand to your dwelling. Wash your clothes in a stream without soap. Give up your mobiles, cars, and mass-produced clothing. If you don't want to do all that, quit bleating and enjoy life...

Do we condemn the pioneers of the past for using coal and oil to start the Industrial Revolution? No, we laud them and we stand on their giant shoulders and enjoy the lifestyle they gave us.

Dependence on fossil fuels will cease soon enough, simply because it's getting too difficult and expensive to get to the oil.

When that happens, renewable energy will come to the forefront and become economically viable. There won't be a need to regulate it, it will happen naturally.

Meanwhile, I'm driving around in my Ferrari, eating KFC, drinking Starbucks coffee and running over endangered species just for the hell of it. It's Evolution at it's purest form... the fastest animals get out of the way - the dumb, slow ones are road pizza - I'm creating a whole new species of super fast animals that won't get hit by traffic... and where's the thanks I get?

[Neo]

There's a growing body of scientists who believe global warming causes more carbon dioxide - wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that explain the carbon lag better than the current theories?

No. Actually most climatologists already know that. That's the thermal runaway that they are trying to warn us about. I used to think the lag was disproof of AGW, but on closer inspection it just supports the thermal runaway aspect of AGW. The figures for natural levels of CO2 do in fact lag behind temperature increases. But the data for human generated CO2 levels matches recent changes very closely. The extra CO2 is causing a greater amount of natural CO2 release and hence the runaway that may soon be unstoppable.

[English_Bob]

There's a growing body of scientists who believe global warming causes more carbon dioxide - wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that explain the carbon lag better than the current theories?

No. Actually most climatologists already know that. That's the thermal runaway that they are trying to warn us about. I used to think the lag was disproof of AGW, but on closer inspection it just supports the thermal runaway aspect of AGW.

Yep... they keep coming up with more and more theories to explain the many anomalies... like how global warming is creating drops in temperature all over the Antarctic and that's why sea ice is thickening... right... more heat = more ice.

[Neo]

There's a growing body of scientists who believe global warming causes more carbon dioxide - wouldn't that be great? Wouldn't that explain the carbon lag better than the current theories?

No. Actually most climatologists already know that. That's the thermal runaway that they are trying to warn us about. I used to think the lag was disproof of AGW, but on closer inspection it just supports the thermal runaway aspect of AGW.

Yep... they keep coming up with more and more theories to explain the many anomalies... like how global warming is creating drops in temperature all over the Antarctic and that's why sea ice is thickening... right... more heat = more ice.

There's no need to come up with any new theories. I don't know if you've read many papers on global warming, but they've been using the same models of greenhouse gasses for decades (over 100 hundred years if you include the simplest ones). You can take the Stefan-Boltzmann law from 1879 and apply it to the levels of gasses in the earth's atmosphere and get a simple model of the greenhouse effect. This doesn't take into account any feedback effects such as the ice-albedo effect ,which requires a model like those published in the 1980's (e.g. MIT proffessor Richard Lindzen). These models have not changed significantly since then, and have only been made more accurate by the addition of factors such as natural release of CO2 due to increased temperature (e.g. Siberian peat bogs). Simple cacluations from standard textbook equations show that the greenhouse effect is very real and that the burning of fossil fuels enhances this effect. (If the greenhouse effect wasn't true the Earth would be a sub zero ice-ball right now.) Please show me some credible paper that suggests this is wrong. Just saying things were cold or warm at some time in the past does nothing to counter this hypothesis.

[birdtongchai]

Science isn't a matter of right and wrong - that's why we have 'theories'.

so the acceleration of gravity at sea level iis a matter of opinion, rather than, oh, somewhere around 9.81 meters per second, per second? mmmmkay.

I'm NOT an expert on this and base this only on a docu i saw on Discovery...

I think the THEORY is that you are pulled to the earth by gravity although it can not be proven...

You also might be PUSHED towards the earth by a pushing force from the galaxy universe or whatsoever.. I am not claiming gravity doesn't exist. I believe in gravity. All i wanna say is Science makes use of theories that are being generally accepted...

Einstein proved Newton was wrong back in 1905 (about space/time being warped) and took him 14 years to prove it. But eventually he did... for 300 years people worked on Newton's Theory... And all scientist assumed it was true... it was science... and then Einstein proves them all wrong...

Science is based on facts that are using plausible theories....

Just my 2 cents...

[birdtongchai]

Get a glass - put some water in it, then add a couple of ice-blocks so that they float freely. Now mark the water level on the side, and wait for the ice to melt...it will be exactly the same level (excluding loss due to evaporation) as when they were ice-blocks - this is because the mass of water displaced by the mass of ice remains the same even of course after the ice returns to a liquid state.

This is NOT true... After the ice has melted, the water level will be lower... Because ice (frozen water) expands, so taking up more space.... Only if the ice is under water... So if you push the icecubes under water, mark the water level, wait until it melts, and measure again, the waterlevel is lower than it was than with the icecubes...

[LakeGeneve]

And what about those who are poor and generally don't have a say or have the opportunity to just move if their village is affected, eg. some pacific islands like Tuvalu and lowland areas in any delta of any country for those who live from day to day. Don't we have some responsibility to them? Those who would could only dream at the SOUND of dancing the night away at some fancy nightclub with a 19 m LED screen on Patong beach .

.

Again? My job is dragged into this debate?

What point are you making?

Do you think you have special, insider knowledge?

I think you'll find most contributors on these forums know exactly who I am.

There's an old saying, 'If you don't have the facts, attack the messenger.'

Ok Dave, I want to profoundly apologise as it was not my intention to give you the impression that this was about your job nor in any way attack who you are (we all know your work history as you have mentioned it a few times and it has nought to do with this issue). Even if I don't understand and disagree with your views on AGW, I certainly don't feel the need to attack you as a person. So apologies for giving the wrong impression.

Your obviously a stand up guy who is prepared to debate the issues and I for one greatly respect that (no matter what Iain says about your cross dressing tendencies :wink: ) - unlike many on TF who cannot seem to handle a genuine discussion and debate.

My intention was to use the example of what looks to be a fantastic new nightclub as a way to highlight that most of us having this debate on here are fortunate to live the lives that we do. We generally have the economic means, the social ultility and the empowered choice in our lives. Juxtapose that with the 1 billion plus poor in the world who work just as hard as we do, yet are generally severely limited in their lifestyle choices.

The nightclub is a metaphor, perhaps a poor one in this context, for the relative decadent lifestyles that we lead in contrast to those for who life is a day to day struggle. And I am not talking poverty in the Thai citizen sense of a few thousand baht a month but poverty of those living on less than 1 dollar US a day (36 baht). I don't need to quote figures for everyone to accept in broad general terms that we consume more resources than they do and that most of these poor will be at the coal face of climate change.

The point is that not that we should feel guilty about our lifestyle, though individually some may, but that do we not have a degree of responsibility to those without choice? (I'll leave out the next gen this time). Should we not evaulate some impacts of our lifestyle? Even if you don't accept AGW, the possibility exists that humans do have an impact, we therefore have a greater impact and thus a greater responsibility to evaluate our lifestyles individually and as a society.

Let me explain my POV in simple words for those who don't read too well...

1 Global warming is a fact.

2 I think it's part of a natural cycle.

3 There are more important problems to fix. Money spent on GW would be better spent on these.

4 I think scientific research is biased and attention-seeking trying to get funding.

5 Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points.

I have read what you wrote but in your last post you quoted misleading temperature and sea level example figures which unfortunately undermined that particular point.

1. Yes, you have said that many a time,

2. Yes but you could be wrong. Even if it is a part of a natural cycle human acticivity could well be acceralting the changes in a shorter time span. I am still surprised that you don't at least countenance the possibility of AGW,

3. An example of the more important problems? Global poverty? Universal education? Clean water supply for the billion odd that dont have it? Does GW not intersect every other "more important" problem?

4. I would agree with you on this in broad terms but does that mean you disbelief all scientific research? What about medical research? Why just the majority of climate scientists?

5. For decades envrionmentalists were on the fringes advocating on issues which were supposedly for the benefit of all before policy makers, scientists and business started to come on board. Air quality issues before there were EPA regulations; protection of forests, nature reserves and beaches which all can enjoy; expressing concern about endangered species and biodoversity; the impact of specific chemicals (dioxins & benzine are eg.s) on human health, ozone loss etc etc. I fail to see how this was all just about self interest or making political points.

No many of those previously fringe ideas are now somewhat mainstream, codified in law in many countries and accepted practice. Many business people would probably call themselves environmentalists. Environmental does not mean your anti-business anymore than saying your pro-business means you support a new factory which employs underpaid staff, destroys a public forest, closes off a public beach and allows industrial sewerage to flow direct into the sea to save a few bucks.

Seems to me that the old environmental v business dichotomy is about as useful these days as the left and right wing one. Dynamics and motivations are much more complex. There are just as many enviromentalists in suits jetting about the world as there are business people in casual clothes hanging out in alternative communities checking their stocks daily.

[Neo]

Get a glass - put some water in it, then add a couple of ice-blocks so that they float freely. Now mark the water level on the side, and wait for the ice to melt...it will be exactly the same level (excluding loss due to evaporation) as when they were ice-blocks - this is because the mass of water displaced by the mass of ice remains the same even of course after the ice returns to a liquid state.

This is NOT true... After the ice has melted, the water level will be lower... Because ice (frozen water) expands, so taking up more space.... Only if the ice is under water... So if you push the icecubes under water, mark the water level, wait until it melts, and measure again, the waterlevel is lower than it was than with the icecubes...

try it... grezzzy was right. It's the weight of water that causes the displacement. The weight doesn't change when water freezes.

[eagle]

English Bob wrote

Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points

I think thats propaganda from businesses who don't want the environment getting in the way of them making money. I hear it all the time and I don't think there is a conspiracy against businessmen, but there is a political party who wants you to like them because they will help keep pollution standards low so you can make money.

Why isn't it propaganda from pipe-smoking, anti-globalisation, lefty, beard-wearing scientists who hate big industry?

The fact is, that while it's cool and trendy to hate the big corporations, we all use their electricity, oil, chemicals and plastics. I enjoy flying to far off destinations. I like cheap electricity to cool my room, warm my food and watch my TV. (And so do the rest of you drum-beating, whinging armchair environmentalists)

If you REALLY believe all the stuff you're posting, do something about it - change your lifestyle completely. Go and live in a wooden shack (made from renewable timber). Eat fruit that falls from the tree. Eat only stuff that can be carried by hand to your dwelling. Wash your clothes in a stream without soap. Give up your mobiles, cars, and mass-produced clothing. If you don't want to do all that, quit bleating and enjoy life...

Do we condemn the pioneers of the past for using coal and oil to start the Industrial Revolution? No, we laud them and we stand on their giant shoulders and enjoy the lifestyle they gave us.

Dependence on fossil fuels will cease soon enough, simply because it's getting too difficult and expensive to get to the oil.

When that happens, renewable energy will come to the forefront and become economically viable. There won't be a need to regulate it, it will happen naturally.

Meanwhile, I'm driving around in my Ferrari, eating KFC, drinking Starbucks coffee and running over endangered species just for the hell of it. It's Evolution at it's purest form... the fastest animals get out of the way - the dumb, slow ones are road pizza - I'm creating a whole new species of super fast animals that won't get hit by traffic... and where's the thanks I get?

I don't think you give a **** about anything.

[English_Bob]

Sorry to seem heartless, but you're probably right.

I live in a microcosm. I worry about me and my loved ones. I don't feel responsible for other stranger's lives. I work hard and do the best I can.

I chip in to charity boxes occasionally (but don't we all do that to make ourselves feel better?)

I don't really drive a Ferrari over animals (I drive a 115cc Fino and kill only mosquitos and food). I hate Starbucks coffee (but love Lavazza). I don't eat KFC (but I've got a hankering for Burger King right now).

There will always be poor. Always be another End-of-the-world around the corner.

Was I fortunate to be born white, middle-class? Too right. If karma exists, I'll come back as a fisherman on Vanatua... (who you'd think would be happy sea levels might rise - more room for fish! See? There's always a silver lining.)

As far as whether the stats I posted match the stats others posted - no way... of course not! But who's to say whose stats are right? I read stuff about GW... I read from people who believe and people who don't believe. And I like the second bunch better... if that makes me a minority, so be it... start handing round a collection tin for the poor misguided fools like me.

I probably have a lower carbon footprint than virtually all the farangs posting on here. The difference is - I don't pontificate about what a virtuous, earth-loving wundkind I am.

[eagle]

We all live in a bubble but being aware isn't a bad thing and if we all do a little it means a lot for the future.

[Bruce551]

English Bob wrote

Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points

I think thats propaganda from businesses who don't want the environment getting in the way of them making money. I hear it all the time and I don't think there is a conspiracy against businessmen, but there is a political party who wants you to like them because they will help keep pollution standards low so you can make money.

Is IBM anti-business and Left wing?

Reasons for Joining Climate Leaders

IBM believes that the most constructive approach it can take to address global climate change is to apply its technological and engineering expertise to reduce emissions associated with its own operations and to create products that are increasingly energy efficient. IBM employs and promotes its own technology for climate research and for aiding the development of efficient processes, products, and solutions to achieve its' own and its' customers' environmental goals.

IBM considers addressing climate change to be not only "one of the most important global issues facing the planet at this time," but also a decision that makes economic sense. "While some assume that cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions cost businesses money, we have found just the opposite. Addressing climate change makes business sense," said Wayne Balta, Vice President for Corporate Environmental Affairs and Product Safety, IBM.

"We have saved more than $100 million since 1998 by conserving energy."

When you consider the significant environmental benefits also achieved, cutting emissions is a win-win proposition. Climate Leaders presents an opportunity for IBM to continue its voluntary efforts to further conserve energy and reduce its greenhouse gas emissions, share best practices, promote cooperation between industry and government, and gain recognized leadership.

Cisco Systems, Inc. pledges to reduce total global GHG emissions by 25 percent from 2007 to 2012.

Citigroup Inc. pledges to reduce total global GHG emissions by 10 percent from 2005 to 2011.

Lockheed Martin pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 30 percent per dollar revenue from 2001 to 2010.

Mack Trucks, Inc. pledges to reduce U.S. GHG emissions by 12 percent per unit produced from 2007 to 2012. Mack Trucks achieved its initial goal by reducing U.S. GHG emissions by 32 percent per unit produced from 2003 to 2007.

Google is spending about $40 million at its Google.org subsidiary on important initiatives to reduce CO2 by developing electric vehicles and researching ways to wean us off of coal and oil by 2030.

Are all these companies left wing environmentalist cry babies?

[English_Bob]

Of course not. But they know the value of good PR.

How much money would they make if they came out brutally honest?

Also they may want a slice of the 100 million IBM mentioned.

[Stramash]

Let me explain my POV in simple words for those who don't read too well...

1 Global warming is a fact.

2 I think it's part of a natural cycle.

3 There are more important problems to fix. Money spent on GW would be better spent on these.

4 I think scientific research is biased and attention-seeking trying to get funding.

5 Environmentalists are usually left-wing, anti-business and therefore skew reports to make their own political points.

On point 2 Dave, as I have said before, there are actual;l very very few who would disagree with you. Yes it is part of a natural cycle of the planet, but the argument is that man is speeding that cycle up beyond the capacity of nature to cope with.

Rather than repeating yourself (and I know sometimes you have to) can you respond to that point?

On point 4, I again agree. See my post regarding the ARISE research. But the fact is; there is biased research from both sides of the debate.

On point 5, sorry mate, but you are about 20 years out of date. The days of environmentalism being the haunt of scraggly sandal wearing left wing beard toters is long gone.

If you don't believe me, go on google and search for 'green energy', 'alternative energy' etc etc. There are equally large and potentially malevolent corporations on both sides of the debate. Green industry is huge business just now, and it's certainly not being carried out purely by nice ex-hippies. The corporations on the 'green' side are now chasing huge grants and tax breaks which will only increase if more governments acknowledge a need for change. And thus the 'green machine' is now as much a part of the corporate structure as the petroleum companies, and with that assimilation comes the lobbying, the pressure groups, and yes, the biased research.

[SiamHotel]

[English_Bob]

Yes...

The 'hockey stick' graph showing man's effect is skewed. It's a snapshot of a tiny time frame. When we look at the big picture, it's a blip.

Ever stood on a mountain and found a shell fossil? This stuff has all happened before and will again.

The projections are hopelessly inaccurate - ignoring things as basic as water vapour. IPCC Projections predicted temperature rises of 3 degrees for the past 10 years... They were out by 300% . Imagine the cock-ups they'll make over 100 years!

Sorry about the lefty, beardy references - I know you miss your beard and nights in reading Trotsky.