UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
Is the Earth's atmosphere warming and, if so, why?
Universities mainly Will, many posts have been created. Then there is the spin off in science related publications.
There are now also a huge group of NGOs, new and old, that are recipients of IPCC and governments largesse.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "As I have already said, and you seem to not understand at a fundamental financial level, one entity's cost is another entity's profit."That's because this is totally wrong. It couldn't be more wrong. I'll explain it as simply as I can...
Climate change imposes a series of costs on society. Our construction projects need to be made to a higher standard. We need to clean up after storms, droughts, tsunamis. Our cars, houses, electrical devices become more expensive to make because of the need to recycle and build in energy saving measures. Our electricity becomes more expensive to produce because we have to switch from cheap but dirty coal to clean but relatively expensive sustainable power sources.
These are costs, not profits. We have to pay more.
It is true that some of these extra costs will mean profits for a supplier. The cost of making solar panels and wind turbines includes a profit margin for the company. These margins are relatively small - generally less than 5% of the total project cost.
And when we switch from coal to solar or wind, we are increasing profits from one group of companies and decreasing profits for another group.
So when you link to an article showing climate change costs, there is absolutely no need for me to comment on it. The article is correct. Climate change has a huge cost. That's one of the reasons why it's so important to squash these silly conspiracy theories.
Where you are wrong, totally and utterly wrong, is to say that those costs = profit. Cost is not profit. That is so basic an economic principle that it really shouldn't need to be explained.
So the question remains - and still hasn't been answered - who stands to make enough of a profit from climate change that they have managed to get all the scientists working on climate change to falsify data?
And how was the worst recorded Atlantic hurricane caused by "energy redistribution"?
Lynne - universities create posts in topics that students are going to find useful. Geoff - the IPCC does not do research or fund research. It collates and synthesises research done by others.
Governments do not profit from climate change.
Come on, keep on going. Who makes a profit from climate change?
Well of course they do Will but are they leading the way or following the trend. Hospitals too have created jobs which were never thought of years ago. For example my husband left the health service in 1997. When his mother died in 2005 he had to go to a large teaching hospital in Nottingham to get the paperwork sorted. He passed door after door with job titles. Co-ordinater for such and such, facilitator for something else, he hadn't a clue what they were doing, but they were all paid out of the budget.
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Well of course they do Will but are they leading the way or following the trend. Hospitals too have created jobs which were never thought of years ago. For example my husband left the health servic..."Having watched the way various groups have managed to dig their way into the environmental budget, I'd say that you're spot on Lynne.
I've watched these bodies fight like ferrets in a sack to get a share of funding.
Years ago I was put on the board of Furness ITEC because they wanted somebody with an agricultural background. Over the next few meetings I watched the local college and another body fight to get the ITEC closed down to that its funding went to them. And that was while they were at meetings of the ITEC board!
David wrote: "Whether or not it adds anything or not to your debate, I found this interesting (it is a bit long, but there you go):http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/..."
Very interesting article.
Anyone see Piers Corbyn on 'This Week' last night? A man after your own heart, Geoff - at least as far as climate change is concerned.
I'll see if I can see it on Catch-up. Was that ITV1?
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "David wrote: "http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/..."..."
I think it is useful in the way he attempts to steer a path between the zealots on both sides.
David wrote: "Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "David wrote: "http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/..."..."
I think it is useful in the way he attempts to steer a path between the zealots on b..."
The trouble with being in the middle is that you get attacked from both sides, unfortunately.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "The trouble with being in the middle is that you get attacked from both sides, unfortunately."Well, there is that.
But when the truth finally emerges that global warming is deliberately caused by pandas, those in the middle will probably be in the best position.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "I'll see if I can see it on Catch-up. Was that ITV1?"BBC1 - I think you'll enjoy it. It's the prog presented by Andrew Neil with Michael Portillo as regular guest. This time they were joined by Alan Johnson, with Piers Corbyn appearing on part of it.
Portillo has an interesting stance on climate change.
David wrote: "Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "The trouble with being in the middle is that you get attacked from both sides, unfortunately."Well, there is that.
But when the truth finally ..."
Oh purl ease.
Everyone knows it's the cockroaches.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Everyone knows it's the cockroaches."Ha! You've been duped by those in the pay of Big Entomology.
Cockroaches are all black, so they absorb heat.
It is the white part of the pandas that reflect heat and thus warm up the planet.
As well as all the bamboo deforestation they cause.
And where are the zebras in all this then?
Patti (baconater) wrote: "And where are the zebras in all this then?"Hiding in the long grass as usual, waiting for the lions to go home.
David wrote: "I think it is useful in the way he attempts to steer a path between the zealots on both sides."Well, not really. The "climate change is not so bad" argument is just as much wishful thinking as the "it isn't happening" lobby or "it's not our fault" group. And the less said about the "it's all a hoax" conspiracy theorists, the better.
This isn't a question of "sides". The established science is:
Climate change is happening.
It is at least partly caused by man's activities.
It is having huge impacts on us, which will almost certainly increase over time.
Science on one "side"; uninformed zealots on the other.
And zebras in the long grass.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "And zebras in the long grass."Please do not make light of this very serious issue that will only be resolved by long, tortured arguments on social media punctuated by cute kitten videos.
Will wrote: "Climate change is happening.It is at least partly caused by man's activities.
It is having huge impacts on us, which will almost certainly increase over time."
Yes, the climate is changing, it is a chaotic and dynamic system so it always does.
True, it may be caused by human activity, but how much and to what degree is uncertain.
You cannot predict the future, so you cannot say it will increase over time. Technology changes all the time so the future cannot be predicted from the past with any degree of certainty.
There are a lot of problems with this rather young science, including the robustness of the models used to make the predictions especially when they use the number of variables needed to model something as complex as the climate.
However, whether the science itself is true or not is probably the least important aspect of this problem - if it is a problem - and I've always thought the 'sceptics' deniers or whatever you want to call them were wrong to attack it in the way they do. Which is why I stay out of these debates. So I'll say no more.
Yes, we can say it will increase over time. Stripping out the observed natural forces, it is evident that man's activities are increasing global temperatures and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. No ifs, not buts. The earth is getting hotter. It is largely our fault.We don't know exactly how bad it is going to get, that is true. But the best science we have at the moment is that it is somewhere between "pretty bad" and "totally ***ing awful".
So here's the bottom line. Virtually all of the world's scientists agree that we are metaphorically farting in our spacesuit. Do we carry on doing it because we don't know exactly how bad it is going to get?
What I can't understand is how the deniers can be so sure that there is something wrong with the science of climate change when all the evidence is against them.
Okay, so for the sake of agreement, I'm gonna say climate change is happening and people are at fault and it will be a detriment to humankind.I'm sure that my re-using a plastic bag and waiting ten minutes for my lightbulb to actually cast, you know, light, will make a huge difference.
You know what the world needs to solve this?
Let's fly several hundred people somewhere from all over the world to talk about it. Somewhere where there's recently been a horrid event necessitating unprecedented security involving flying over thousands of people.
During this meeting, let absolutely nothing be resolved.
Oh and Daresh.
And, by the way, hundreds of thousands of children are still dying all over the world because their parents don't know where to take a shit.
Hard to find the priorities, isn't it?
Michael Cargill wrote: "God bless humanity, Patti."Oh yeah. Let's take no personal responsibility and throw it all at gawd.
Michael Cargill wrote: "God bless humanity, Patti."Whoops. That wasn't directed at you personally, Mikey.
I know you and I share pretty much the same feelings on things.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Michael Cargill wrote: "God bless humanity, Patti."Oh yeah. Let's take no personal responsibility and throw it all at gawd."
Given the job the politicians are making of it, that's probably a reasoned response :-(
It was a good conference, Mrs Mugabe needed more shoes.
Will wrote: "What I can't understand is how the deniers can be so sure that there is something wrong with the science of climate change when all the evidence is against them. "Interesting you say that.
A book I'm reading at the moment Moral Tribes: Emotion, Reason, and the Gap Between Us and Them
does devote a part of a chapter to that very question about this climate change thing.To put it crudely he argues that people think that 'people like me think that, so that is what I think too', which is why these questions often tend to split roughly along party political lines too.
I'm with David in this, that for a lot of people now Climate Change is an article of faith and an extra reason for attacking people they intended to attack anywayA fair proportion of the Climate Change debate doesn't really have anything to do with the climate
That's the case for most debates to be honest, it's a symptom of our tribal nature.
Michael Cargill wrote: "That's the case for most debates to be honest, it's a symptom of our tribal nature."Yes, that's what this book is basically about and whether there is a way of overcoming those tribal differences.
Interesting, but as yet I'm unconvinced.
Climate change is split along party political lines? I am sorry, but that just isn't the case. The need for action on climate change is accepted by virtually every sensible political party and every Government around the world. It is quite possibly the least party political issue we have in front of us at the moment.I don't know of anyone who thinks that climate change being true is an article of faith. It is a matter of overwhelming evidence.
I do know quite a few people who want to deny climate change on faith grounds - ie blind belief despite the evidence.
A fair proportion of the climate change debate not being about the climate? Possibly. There is a lot here about selfishness versus the common good. A lot of people don't want climate change to be real because it is expensive to deal with and it reduces our personal freedoms.
Will wrote: "Climate change is split along party political lines? I am sorry, but that just isn't the case."[Sigh]
Yes it is, certainly in America, where the book's author comes from, most sceptics/deniers are on the right and those that accept it tend to be of the left. It is very much a tribal thing.
It is also what is known as 'a fact' - something on which the science is settled, even.
As for climate change I don't necessarily disagree with the science at all. It does seem to go someway towards explaining the phenomena.
However I do not accept that 'the science is settled', simply because that is not how science works. Science is simply the best explanation we have at the moment until something better comes along - which it always does.
What I distrust is all forms of zealotry, and unfortunately climate change has become for some yet another of those modern middle-class proto-religions like the environmentalist movement it grew from that makes its adherents so insufferably smug, condescending and superior. So much so that you feel almost obliged to oppose these for the good of your sanity regardless of the consequences for the planet (should there be any).
Even in America the deniers are very much in the minority. They are trying to present it as two sides of an argument, when it has long since moved passed that point. The deniers are moving more and more into the territory of wacky conspiracy theorists instead of credible scientists.The science as a whole is far from settled, but some elements of it have been proved so many times that they are becoming generally accepted. It is similar to the theory of evolution. We can never prove for certain that we fully understand how evolution works. Each new discovery teaches us a little bit more. But the science is advancing at the margins of the subject. The overall theory of evolution is now generally accepted and unlikely to change.
It is the same with climate change. Even the most rabid of deniers have long since stopped arguing that climate change is happening. When they lost that battle they shifted to the argument of "it's not man's fault". And when they lose that battle they will shift to some other evidence-less argument.
So sure science will keep on advancing. But don't expect it to suddenly find that the climate isn't changing or that man's activities aren't at least partly to blame. That part of climate change has been proved so many times that the main area of research now is around how bad it is going to get and what we should do about it.
Climate change has become a middle-class proto religion so you will oppose it on general grounds? Well, if that sort of logic floats your boat then go right ahead. The rest of us will continue to make decisions based on the evidence.
If the building was on fire and someone shouts "we'd better all get out!" - would you decide that they were acting like a zealot and being smug and superior? Would you sit tight and ignore the flames all around you "for the good of your sanity"?
I have heard of some odd reasons for climate change denial, but that has to be the oddest one yet.
Will wrote: "Even in America the deniers are very much in the minority. They are trying to present it as two sides of an argument, when it has long since moved passed that point. The deniers are moving more and..."[Another load of patronising bollocks]
You do realise that it makes it very difficult for people to take you seriously when you do this? Or is that the point - close down the debate and have the last word, so you win again?
It doesn't make you look big or clever, merely small and petty.
You need to calm down and take a few deep breaths.
I knew it was a mistake to stop ignoring you and scrolling past your posts, but I always try to see the best in people and give them another chance.
I apologise for that mistake.
And "middle class proto-religions like the environmentalist movement it grew from that makes its adherents so insufferably smug, condescending and superior" isn't patronising bollocks?If you give it out, expect to receive it back in return.
This is a place for debate. If you want to take part, then feel free to make your points and bring your own evidence. But please expect people to respond to your points.
Pot, kettle, black, hmmm?
Funny how he doesn't mention temperatures in 2015, eh?And then he says that the increase in temperature between 1975 and 1998 is no greater than between 1910 and 1940. Why did he pick those years? They have nothing to do with anything. The range he has chosen conveniently ignores all the temperature increases after 1998. He is comparing a 23 year span (1975 to 1998) with a 30 year span (1910 to 1940). That's just bad science.
And all he is saying is that temperatures have been rising from 1910 to the current day - mirroring the increase in CO2 from man's activities. Picking a random 23 year period and comparing it with an equally random 30 year period shows nothing.
I could go on. Every single one of his ten claims are dodgy - skewing what little evidence he can find to try to justify an increasingly out of touch conclusion.
The worry is that the gullible will be taken in by his pseudo science. I am amazed that the Telegraph still pay him.
Why are celebrity endorsers of an idea so readily promoted to these causes as if their point of view, which is all it is, is more important than anyone else's. They aren't scientists, they just have a fanatical zeal to ram their agendas down the throats of the masses. Al Gore etc. They just put my back up. Then, the idea that these political pygmies in Paris can indeed change the world is still too much for me to swallow. Yes they can impose taxes and therefore change peoples' spending powers but change the climate, never in a million years. They certainly can cause massive blips in temperature with bombing campaigns that set oil installations on fire etc but that is about all, physically.
Robert Mugabe has destroyed more lives than he's saved with his farming 'policies' and murder of farmers with the resulting lack of production of a country which was one of the most productive in Africa. Faith in our leaders? I really think not!
It was just a chance for the wives and hangers on to do their Christmas shopping.
Because we have managed to change the climate. And not in a million years - we've done it in a few hundred years. We've done the worst of the damage in the last one hundred years. And we are still doing it.The "political pygmies" you are talking about are the leaders and senior politicians of over 150 countries. They may not be scientists, but they didn't dream up climate change. Unlike the deniers, the case for climate change is backed by genuine science. The politicians' role is to agree to take action and to set overall policies. COP21 is as much about the scientists as it is about the politicians.
Climate change is not a cause or a charity. It's a very real threat to our way of life.
So you can try to ignore it if you want. You can try to ridicule it or equate it to a celebrity cause. But the only person you are fooling is yourself. Lots of people are saying that man-made climate change is real because ... ahem ... man-made climate change is real.
What I find amazing - and slightly sad - are the bizarre reasons that people come up with to deny the overwhelming evidence for climate change. You seem to dislike it because lots of people are saying it, including lots of world leaders.
But if there was a genuine threat to our way of life (say a plague or an asteroid about to hit the earth), isn't that exactly what you would expect to happen? All the world leaders would ask the scientists to review the evidence. Then if the evidence showed there was a problem, the leaders would get together to agree to do something about it.
Which is exactly what has happened. When climate change was first suggested, the public quite rightly asked for evidence. The evidence is now clear. Then the public argued that every country should take action and not just us. That is what conferences like COP21 are about.
We can't complain that Governments don't work together on climate change then whinge when they do.
You are labelling me a 'denier'. I'm neither ignoring facts nor denying climate change. What I've said is exactly what I think. The fact that I have made some facetious remarks on the quality of world leaders does not make me a sceptic of science, just a declaration of non belief that those people can do anything to change a climate. I just find it hard to accept that some of those people who I personally believe could not find their backsides with both hands can save the world. They all have their own agendas and vested interests.I may be fooling myself, but at least I'm not trying to fool others.
Lynne - the denial comes when you say "Yes they can impose taxes and therefore change peoples' spending powers but change the climate, never in a million years."It doesn't take a million years to change the climate, either for the better or the worse. That's what all the science is telling us. To deny that is to deny the science.
But if you are one of those "vested interest" believers, I'll ask you the same question that Geoff has been dodging: Who has a vested interest in climate change? Who stands to benefit because we are screwing up our environment?
And here you have Will's stance in a nutshell. Whenever you provide a different view to him, you are immediately labeled a denier and deluded. This is a clear sign of a zealot.You cannot reason with a man like Will on this subject, in the same way that you cannot argue with a religious zealot. His mouth is open but his ears are shut.
And every time someone uses the word denier I think of stockings.And enough with the personal attacks, some of you.
Debate the issue properly.
No, Geoff, the sign of a zealot is someone who takes a point of view despite the evidence. Climate change denial is not just a "different point of view", in the same way that all the wacky conspiracy theories are not simply different points of views. By all means have a debate on the evidence. You say that it is all a hoax where someone with a vested interest has persuaded all the climate change scientists to falsify data. So, come on, tell us who has this vested interest. Who is paying for every climate change scientist to falsify data?
And how was the worst Atlantic storm caused by "energy redistribution"?
My ears are very much open. If you can stop the ad hominem insults for a second, where is your evidence?
Will wrote: "No, Geoff, the sign of a zealot is someone who takes a point of view despite the evidence. Climate change denial is not just a "different point of view", in the same way that all the wacky conspira..."What you say and what you do are a great distance apart, Will.
Will wrote: "No, Geoff, the sign of a zealot is someone who takes a point of view despite the evidence." Zealot:
a. One who is zealous, especially excessively so.
b. A fanatically committed person.
Source - TheFreeDictionary.com
A good fit, it seems.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/...