Climate Change

[jetpilot]

I am not sure if anyone caught the program on BBC4 last night but it was basically the sceptics point of view. They raised some very interesting points and seem to have a growing following.

I know this subject is a can of worms and anyone on here is only really offering an opinion, based on information they have read as i dont believe we have any climatologists on board. They made some good points:

People rant about current weather - apparently the weather is nothing to do with the climate.

They do not deny, how could they, that co2 levels are rising.

Co2 levels millions of years ago were at 30 - 40%,a lot higher than now, without us around and we were in an ice age.

Their main question is, it cannot be proved co2 is the main contributing factor to a rise in average temperature, its just they cannot find any other reason, which doesnt mean there isnt one.

The forecast is based on a computer model, worked out by the worlds largest computer and as we know, a computer is only as good as the program its been given.

I am not looking to debate the issue, just some thoughts as to what we think as average Joe\'s, i am sure some will be green and believe and some wont! Bit whats your reasons for believing or not?

[AtomicRex]

It is a can of worms....but the burning question to me is so what?  What harm is global warming ACTUALLY going to have?
 
The slight melting of the ice caps isn\'t going to have the effect that some people feel.
 
The Earth goes through cyclic changes and I\'m sure the stuff we do is minor in comparison.  It is just a tax opportunity in my eyes...and something for the uneducated Greens to whinge about!
 
One of my friends works for the forestry commission and was given the job of looking into climate changes with the park he looks after.  Having researched the facts, he now campaigns for the opposing side!  There is so much hypothetical theory behind it.  And no real evidence to back it all up!

[Grant Monkhouse]

I think it is laughable that they started of calling it global warming, then climate change, now it\'s all about carbon emissions.

Can we as humans cause a serious effect on a planet in the 200 years that our technology has advance from candles to electric? When the dinosaurs were around for millions of years releasing monstrous farts which are dangerous gas releases??

It\'s funny how carbon emissions were not on the news so much when that volcanoe erupted!! Which released more more carbon in the time it was active than we can in a year.

If the climate is changing then why is the weather getting worse in this country?

[AtomicRex]

I believe our weather is massively influenced by the jet stream, and that has shifted over the past couple of years...hence the flood issues in Australia, and the snow we\'ve had for the last couple of years.
 
Cows produce more methane from burping than farting!  Kangaroos are better for the planet, if that is your worry, than cows  Far more carbon friendly.
 
As said...get a reason for taxing and get some greens to back it....and you\'re onto a winner!
 
These taxes should be used to put right the problems they cause.
So road tax....goes towards roads.
Council tax....goes towards the council
Climate tax....goes where?
 
(the first is a little dodgy too!)

[Grant Monkhouse]

Yes I agree it\'s just another way to rape is on tax. It makes memlaugh though that they have changed the road tax classification on cars based on emissions, but yet electric cars are tax free?! WTF surely they are more damaging to the road because batteries are heavy, very heavy, and you have to have a lot of them to make a car go any kind of distance. So they will wear the roads more?

I\'m too sure about replacing cows with kangaroos, better to look at and actually do something but they are huge and very dangerous. And I don\'t know what kangaroo milk tastes like but I definately don\'t want to taste it.

[Grant Monkhouse]

Have these carbon emission scientists ever measured the distance we are to the sun? Maybe due to gravitational pull we have moved a little bit closer to the sun causing a slight change in climate/temperature/carbon emissions/people talking rubbish/giving us an excuse to moan about something else.

[AtomicRex]

I would say there is more of a relationship between the number of sunspots year on year.  We are at a current low at the moment, and historic patterns have shown that fewer sunspots can contribute towards colder spells.  Rivers that would normally run during the winter months, are iced over for prolonged periods.
 
There is also a relationship between the number of sunspots and Rx7s currently on the road! ;-)

[od404]

I\'ve sat on the fence with this for a number of years! And I don\'t see any reason to change.
 
A lot of the arguments for the existence of man-made climate change appear to start with the assumption that it is infact happening. Without that leading assumption I doubt much of the research would get anywhere fast. And the arguments against (as pointed out by the OP) tend to focus more on disproving the arguments for.
 
The big problem we face is that there is now an entire industry in this country revolving around the idea that reducing carbon emissions is needed, should climate change be disproved that industry is no longer required. Granted the energy (and therefore monetary) savings would still exist, but the initial cost of a lot of this technology is still too high to encourage it\'s take up.
 
I don\'t doubt that climatologists have a passion for finding out what is or isn\'t happening to the planet based on our existence, but at a political level, the focus appears to have shifted due to the tax and economical benefits brought by the need to reduce carbon emissions.

[jetpilot]

I tend to agree with Atomic, climate change, global warming, carbon emissions etc is a very convenient tool to use for increased taxes and explain those taxes away to it, although as he points out, we have little or no info on where these extra taxes are spent!

Also as od says, it is now an industry, reliant on the assumption that "it" exists for that very industry to continue, so think it is very unlikely that we cause it will ever be disproved. Maybe the whole situation has been founded on the fact it cant be disproved as to be credible. I doubt some of the scientists figures can be contradicted, but that doesnt mean there is without doubt, 100%, the association between co2 and warming, maybe there is another contributing factor, science evolves all the time, so it wouldnt surprise me in 10 years time, scientists turn round and say, oh, it wasnt co2 at all increasing the temp, it was "x". Science has been know to make mistakes before.

However i think the biggest thing for me is the arrogance of man to think we caused it and we can change it. If said people really thing we can control the atmosphere of a whole planet, why arent we changing the atmosphere on the moon and making it a 2nd earth, a bit far fetched i know, but on lateral thinking, so is changing the climate patterns of the one we live on now!

[AtomicRex]

Not a case of being far-fetched...but if we think we can adapt the atmosphere, why cant we prevent the weather patterns across the world.

[Competition PZ]

The main thin in "carbon emissions" that are glossed over by journo\'s who don\'t ever understand science is that we have been digging up carbon ( in oil/coal/gas/peat) locked in the earth and burning it thus creating an unnatural imbalance demonstrated by the increase in CO2.
NO time in the past has any activity introduced such a huge amount in such a short time -- all driven by "man".
 
Second point I always smile about is the "name" causing confusion and argument.
"warming" etc etc. The average temp is rising, that means some areas may well have weather patters which for their area is colder ! YES, these have all existed and occurred before. But this time we are accelerating the process so the natural balances that have "protected" our atmosphere for billions of years cant/wont cope.
 
The science behind the projections are sound ... just that there are dozens of projections on the evidence collected and SOME are saying the opposite end results.
So no wonder journo\'s only seek headlines and not reasoned discourse on the topic. Hell the scientists can\'t even be objective about it all.
 
THAN add on top those with political agendas and the car owner is doomed
 
re what we can do, then not unreasonably suggesting we slow done the impact WE ADD to the planet by our actions can only be a good thing. Problem I have is some suggest it\'s a definitee certainty, it\'s not, only a probability and worse that a solution exists that is a definit certainty, it cant be, only a probability.
 
BUT, do I want all of the population of China and India consuming hydrocarbons and producing CO2 and other worse oxides at the same per capita rate as the US ? hell no ! Not even at our rate.
 
For me that\'s where the challenge is for us. If we don\'t do something to limit our consumption can we reasonably ask/expect others ? Personally I think our fuel costs already do that in the UK and the push by the ecologists to wind power is just a waste of time and money ( but WILL make some politicians and big businessees VERY successful )
 
Good point on the "adapt" the suggestion is we reduce the damage we cause which is WAY different from suggesting we are adapting it per se and we know we can\'t prevent major weather patterns

[CharlieP]

The think that annoys me is the lack of knowledge, or open mindedness about the new technologies...the guy who installed our Solar Water Panels (which have been excellent) suggested we have Solar Photo Voltaic Installed, as there are high payback from energy companies....so they help in terms of investment....BUT they are less than 20% efficient...so as with the Wind Turbines, until the technology improves, they are making the situation WORSE!!!
Of course, it\'s ok for The Inconvenient Truth man to win awards while sitting in his huge house with the colossal heating and electric bill!

[BlitzBoy]

re what we can do, then not unreasonably suggesting we slow done the impact WE ADD to the planet by our actions can only be a good thing. Problem I have is some suggest it\'s a definitee certainty, it\'s not, only a probability and worse that a solution exists that is a definit certainty, it cant be, only a probability.
 

I have read this paragraph three times, its still does not makes sense, sounds like mumbo jumbo, sounds like what typical scientist would say to baffle normal people, proves a point eh lol :rollin

[dthebuk]

Ive always taken the attitude that theres a limited amount of fuel to burn, its all going to be get burnt. Therefore total CO2 emmisions due to fossil fuels is not going to change however quickly we burn it. Is this correct or am I very wrong?

I guess theres an argument against burning it quickly?

[Will66]

The rate at which we have burnt fossil fuels along with the amount of rainforest we have cut down has created problems with the Carbon Cycle.  If we want to alter things we ought to make changes.  More than anything I think these changes will be driven by the increasing price of oil.

If we invested in something like covering 10% of the Sahara Desert in Solar panels, and in methods of storing the energy collected, we\'d have enough to meet global energy demands, if I could sell this idea I could become massively rich!