Global warming my arse

What evidence do you have to lead you to believe that global warming is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt?

I never said that, what I said was this

"how do they differentiate between warming due to natural trends and cycles and warming due to man made activity?"

the-smiling-buddha [quote]What evidence do you have to lead you to believe that global warming is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt?

I never said that, what I said was this

"how do they differentiate between warming due to natural trends and cycles and warming due to man made activity?"[/quote]

Naughty boy ! ;) I think you know quite well which sentence eeehhh refereed to:

"but man made Global Warming in many circles is taken as a 'given' and I ain't all that sure that it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt"

Man made global warming has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps you would like it to be now proven beyond unreasonable doubt ?

the-smiling-buddha

. . . and if you remember the 'inconvenient truth’

Al Gore talks about sea level rises of about 20 ft

So ipso facto either Al Gore hasn’t read the lastest from the IPCC

or he is talking utter BOLLOX

When people start speaking bollox to me

I start asking questions

Gore, in the film you mention, discusses the risk of a major ice sheet collapse in either Greenland or West Antarctica, either of which would raise sea levels world wide by around 20 ft leaving 100,000,000 people refugees.

Of course this does not contradict nor negate the most recent IPCC report (02/02/07)

Perhaps this is the source of your confusion ?

.

Here is the false dichotomy:

A: Unlike you and me, Al Gore's research team on the film does not know the latest research data from the IPCC.

B: Al Gore, in his film, is talking 'bollox'.

.

Here is, what I think may be a more correct trichotomy:

A: Unlike you and me, Al Gore's research team on the film does not know the latest research data from the IPCC.

B: Al Gore, in his film, is talking 'bollox'.

C: You might have made a mistake somewhere when formulating your 'view'.

.

the-smiling-buddha I didn't present an argument

I simply asked a question

and now I am going to ask another one

How accurate are our climate models?

Only if our climate models are 100% accurate

Will we know for sure what will happen in the future

if however there is any inaccuracy in our models

then we can only state a probability, say an 80% chance of such and such happening

I'm not sure of the exact figure, but climate scientists use phrases like "beyond any reasonable doubt" with regards to the climate models' accuracy - and this is usually an accuracy of 99%.

Well according to the IPCC we don't even know with any certainty

the accuracy or inaccuracy of our climate models

So we can't even state a probability of what we think might happen

It's impossible to say anything in science will happen with 100% certainty. That's because when we observe nature and then formulate theories we are making the jump from "many observations" to "all observations" - hence why scientific theories are always open to revision and a high level of criticism from scientific journals.

Instead what the IPCC gives to use

Is best case and worst case scenarios

Well the very worst scenario for the 21st century

gives a sea level rise of about 2ft

and if you remember the 'inconvenient truth’

Al Gore talks about sea level rises of about 20 ft

This is due to the revisions of the climate models used by scientists. For example, previous models simulated the ice sheets melting at a constant rate, however, it was discovered that the rate at which ice sheets melt increases because the melted ice lubricates the sheets of ice, hence they slide more easily.

So ipso facto either Al Gore hasn’t read the lastest from the IPCC

or he is talking utter BOLLOX

When people start speaking bollox to me

I start asking questions

Leww has already covered that.

leeww [quote]the-smiling-buddha [quote]What evidence do you have to lead you to believe that global warming is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt?

I never said that, what I said was this

"how do they differentiate between warming due to natural trends and cycles and warming due to man made activity?"[/quote]

Naughty boy ! ;) I think you know quite well which sentence eeehhh refereed to:

"but man made Global Warming in many circles is taken as a 'given' and I ain't all that sure that it has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt"

Man made global warming has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps you would like it to be now proven beyond unreasonable doubt ?[/quote]

I was going to say you sneaky git, smiling-buddha :P

RPM come on guys, I think he was joking, or at least being intentionally incredulous.

thankyou !

my point exactly, it was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment based on what a lot of people think global warming is about.

If the IPCC worst case secenario is 2ft rise in sea levels how to you make out that a 20ft rise is credible..? a worst case scenario means the worst case. So either the scenario is wrong or Al Gore is wrong, there ain't no third way, sunshine.

Al Gore then went on to be found out having $30,000 electricity bills in his southern mansion, which he offset by buying carbon credits from his own company. That I believe entitles me to question his credibility, because if you are going to preach, you got to stand by what you preach, and if you follow his example, then if you are rich you just go out and buy yourself a green conscience.

As far as I understand it, it looks as if gloabl temperatures are rising, man most likely has made a contribution to this, however climate change is cyclical (for example the ice ages) and there are other factors that may contribute, the orbit of the earth, sun spot activity etc. If you read the IPCC report or at least the summary on wikipedia no one no where can tell you in which proportions each of these factors effect the climate. Therefore my initial question about 'how do we know' is a quite a reasonable question.

However I asked the question not because I dispute global warming but because I heard on a radio show that said that if you publicly question global warming these days it is akin to making a racist or sexist comment,so I was kind of curious what the reaction might be.

I think the problem is knowing who to believe.. Oil companies and richer governments will try to soothe it down and make you believe its not that bad. Carbon Offset companies will do everything they can to make you feel guilty but just enough to make you pay and not really change your habits. It's in their interest that you keep making money and polluting as much as possible.

Then there's us, the ones being fucked and who can't really go round reading every 200 page report or better yet, testing our own silly theories. Amongst us, there are a few who know that just about anything a government will tell you in cooperation with an oil company is a lie, and therefore must be fought.

There is so much (dis)information going on at the moment that you will never have all the facts. You pretty much have to stand up from your seat and act on gut instinct! Are they protecting our interests? Are the ones in control, the powerful, rich motherfuckers, giving a rats arse about what you and your children need? Are you sure you can trust them?

:)

I spent a couple of weeks at the start of this year in Antarctica with the British Antarctic Survey scientists (the same guys that originally discovered the hole in the ozone layer years ago) and they're convinced that a hell of a lot of the warming thawe're seeing is due to man made factors. They also reckon that if we dont do something serious, we're heading for a tipping point that we couldnt recover from - thats where the huge sea level rises could come from - melting of the antarctic peninsular being a big one. If the evidence is good enough for them, its good enough for me!

wow, how did you get to do that? We should talk! haha :)

One advantage of working in telly news - occasionally get to do stuff like that!

global warming is a tax raising agenda by current governments climatic records go back 300 years if that and the earth has been going for billions of years we had ice a mile thick over much of england in the " recent past " a degree here a degree there it's happened before and will happen again we are insignificant and compared to earths co2 output pale into sinsinificance
tax tax tax

nor_feest [quote]RPM come on guys, I think he was joking, or at least being intentionally incredulous.

thankyou !

my point exactly, it was meant to be a tongue in cheek comment based on what a lot of people think global warming is about.[/quote]

Whoops!

Sorry !!!!! :)

dicki global warming is a tax raising agenda by current governments climatic records go back 300 years if that and the earth has been going for billions of years we had ice a mile thick over much of england in the " recent past " a degree here a degree there it's happened before and will happen again we are insignificant and compared to earths co2 output pale into sinsinificance
tax tax tax

Yeah, absolutely. It's a conspiracy between governments to raise taxes. After all, wasn't the IPCC set up by and paid for the by the World Government (aka the United Nations). And we all know that the appearance of the World Government was foretold in the Apocrypha, and that therefore the appearance of the anti-christ is due.

Climatic records do NOT go back 300 years. Ice cores (which are one, only one of many, of the means used to determine global mean temps in the past) go back millenia.

I haven't seen 'Inconvenient Truth' so I can't really comment on how much of it is bull-shit. Climate science and modelling of global climate is immensely complicated. So it follows that there are bound to be inaccuracies and over-simplifications in a short film.

But the overwhelming majority of climate scientist and others, as represented in the peer-reviewed documents produced by the IPCC, agree that there is unprecedented (that means it hasn't happened before at this speed) warming taking place, and that the overwhelming likelihood is that it is caused by humanity changing the balance of the CO2 cycle.

We can argue about what is the right thing to do. But climate change, caused by humanity's tipping the balance of CO2, is a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go and have a very careful look at all the evidence, and I mean all the evidence, not just mickey-mouse docu crap on TV, or dubious pseudo-assertions made on various 'free-thinking' blogs.

but as i said to a friend the other night whether it be true or not i am doing as much as i can to reduce my own wastage at home, i sold my car, i compost any waste than can be composted in my garden, recycle all my rubbish at home that can be recycled
i am just trying to be a better person my name is earl

the-smiling-buddha If the IPCC worst case secenario is 2ft rise in sea levels how to you make out that a 20ft rise is credible..?

The IPCC's very conservative (by their own admission) estimate of sea level rises is in fact 1.4 ft (43cm) - The collapse of one of the major ice sheets (Greenland or West Antarctica) would be in addition to this.

the-smiling-buddha
a worst case scenario means the worst case. So either the scenario is wrong or Al Gore is wrong, there ain't no third way, sunshine.

Let me try and explain your misunderstanding.

A sea level rise of 1.4ft is not a 'worst case scenario', it is more correctly at the top end of the predicted sea level change.

You have taken the very real IPCC predictions, called the top end of the range the 'worst case scenario' and seem to be using it as a semantic device to limit any further sea level rises.

The IPCCs figures are an 'ambient' estimate and make no comment on possible ice sheet collapse.

IPCC predictions point to a sea level rise of between 28cm and 43cm.

If there is a collapse of one of the major ice sheets the sea level rise could be as much as 600cm (20 ft).

the-smiling-buddha
Al Gore then went on to be found out having $30,000 electricity bills in his southern mansion, which he offset by buying carbon credits from his own company. That I believe entitles me to question his credibility, because if you are going to preach, you got to stand by what you preach, and if you follow his example, then if you are rich you just go out and buy yourself a green conscience.

Ad hominem alert !

Normally I would try and not get involved in an ad hominem, but to be honest I am a little confused, what is wrong with buying carbon credits from your own company ?

the-smiling-buddha
As far as I understand it, it looks as if gloabl temperatures are rising, man most likely has made a contribution to this, however climate change is cyclical (for example the ice ages) and there are other factors that may contribute, the orbit of the earth, sun spot activity etc. If you read the IPCC report or at least the summary on wikipedia no one no where can tell you in which proportions each of these factors effect the climate. Therefore my initial question about 'how do we know' is a quite a reasonable question.

It is reasonable to ask.

What kind of response would alleviate your doubts ?

what is wrong with buying carbon credits from your own company ?

well, the whole carbon offset deal is wrong. It's basically saying that we can continue to produce and consume as much crap as we do at the moment, but since we're so rich and advanced, we'll just pay un-developed nations to pollute less themselves.. In practice, preventing those countries from developing (at least in a comparable way to richer nations) and tipping the scale even more on social inequality.

I do agree with the rest of your post though.

Buffalo Bill We can argue about what is the right thing to do. But climate change, caused by humanity's tipping the balance of CO2, is a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to go and have a very careful look at all the evidence, and I mean all the evidence, not just mickey-mouse docu crap on TV, or dubious pseudo-assertions made on various 'free-thinking' blogs.

Exactly.

the-smiling-buddha However I asked the question not because I dispute global warming but because I heard on a radio show that said that if you publicly question global warming these days it is akin to making a racist or sexist comment,so I was kind of curious what the reaction might be.

The reason it's frowned upon to doubt it is because there is such overwhelming evidence for the existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), and it is considered irrational to doubt it because of this, or it just makes you look slightly ignorant of the evidence. Saying it is akin to making a rascist or sexist comment is silly though, because they are out of pure hate and dislike, and doubting AGW is, well, just ignorance.

the-smiling-buddha As far as I understand it, it looks as if gloabl temperatures are rising, man most likely has made a contribution to this, however climate change is cyclical (for example the ice ages) and there are other factors that may contribute, the orbit of the earth, sun spot activity etc. If you read the IPCC report or at least the summary on wikipedia no one no where can tell you in which proportions each of these factors effect the climate. Therefore my initial question about 'how do we know' is a quite a reasonable question.

Don't ever take Wikipedia seriously. I mean, one of my friend's lecturer's at his university told them not to use it because it's unreliable. Loads of people did. How did the lecturer know? Because he had changed one of the dates in an article that they knew people would use. For all we know, the articles on Wikipedia could be written by the ridiculous 'free-thinking' bloggers.

Seems to me that predicting a 20ft rise in sea levels is a pretty effective scare tactic

But how credible is this claim if it is not supported by the IPCC

and if it were credible why doesn't the IPCC have ice sheet collapse as it's 'high' scenario

The estimates from the IPCC are conservative for good reason I would imagine

The word you seek is not Ad hominem but hypocrisy

It is hypcoritical to preach about reducing one carbon footprints

Then doing nothing to reduce ones own carbon footprint

buying carbon credits in ones own company is ethically nothing more than sleight of hand

It creates the impression that wealthy people can just buy themselves a green conscious

Like I said earlier I didn't post because I had doubts

I posted because I wanted to see what the response was going to be

"See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement any more, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level." Patrick Moore founding member and former President of Greenpeace.

Calling someone ignorant, just because they disagree with you is in fact rather patronizing don't you think..? a person is entitled to have an opinion and to express that opinion, that is called free speech. The only point I made in my first post was to call the 'inconvenient truth' a load of bollox, provocative yes, but I did it because I wanted to provoke not because I am ignorant of climate change. I was curious to see what the reaction would be, so far I have been called ignorant and a 'git' which seems to rather bear out what they were saying on this radio show I was listening to doesn't it..?

Secondly I am studying from my masters degree so I know all about being a student, I know all the big fancy words, I know all the academic procedures, this is a bicycle forum, I ain't getting marks, so wiki is adequate enough.

As far as I understand it, it looks as if gloabl temperatures are rising, man most likely has made a contribution to this, however climate change is cyclical (for example the ice ages) and there are other factors that may contribute, the orbit of the earth, sun spot activity etc. If you read the IPCC report or at least the summary on wikipedia no one no where can tell you in which proportions each of these factors effect the climate. Therefore my initial question about 'how do we know' is a quite a reasonable question.

Yes, true. Nobody knows.

But climate change, caused by humanity's tipping the balance of CO2, is a scientifically proven fact

Actually I believe that it is a consensus of opinion and not a scientificaly proven fact. Unless of course you can tell me how it was proven, by whom and when.

I don't want to tread on anybody's toes here, but can we just talk about bikes rather than bickering?

Unxetas is right. Too many forums are ruined by people fighting over stuff that really doesn't matter - I'm talking about seeing who's cleverest, not global warming - and I'd hate to see this one go the same way

No offence is intended to anyone, by the way...

Wow, you're older than I pictured you...

You probably want to tuck that dress in when you're riding too - catching that in your crank would be murder

OK I'll stop bloody arguing the toss and get myself back into spiritual balance