Global warming - beyond debate?

DaiNasty · 08-02-2010, 21:26

Is belief in global-warming science another example of the "madness of crowds"? That strange but powerful social phenomenon, first described by Charles Mackay in 1841, turns a widely shared prejudice into an irresistible "authority". Could it indeed represent the final triumph of irrationality? After all, how rational is it to pass laws banning one kind of light bulb (and insisting on their replacement by ones filled with poisonous mercury vapour) in order to "save electricity", while ploughing money into schemes to run cars on ... electricity? How rational is it to pay the Russians once for fossil fuels, and a second time for permission (via carbon credits) to burn them (see box page 36)? And how rational is it to suppose that the effects of increased CO2 in the atmosphere take between 200 and 1,000 years to be felt, but that solutions can take effect almost instantaneously?

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.u...ode=409454&c=2

martyh · 08-02-2010, 22:00

i have often thought that some global warming claims are wildly exagerated,as yet there is no conclusive proof we are going to have "super mega hurricains"and lose thousands of miles of coast line in 50 years due to to global warming ,fair enough i accept that we are pumping too much waist into rivers and the air ,but there is also evidence that climate change happens naturally and quite sudden .and as you say it's no good getting rid of millions of petrol cars and replacing them with millions of electric ones the logic is backward imo

downquark1 · 08-02-2010, 23:28

There are 2 issues here that are hopelessly conflated.

The actual Global Warming
Rhetoric
What do do about it

And unless you have graphs and differential equations you aren't talking about the first.

Matth · 09-02-2010, 00:05

Damn lies and statistics!

I remember when Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth were the only ones talking about global warming, lone voices in the dark.

Then governments figured out that it was a good excuse for more taxes and meddling, and if you're a scientist that wants government money, you use the interpretation that favours their point of view.

Now those who do not believe the case for man-made global warming are the cranks, the voices in the dark, but growing stronger.

I suppose one good thing, it does place some value on protecting forest ecosystems.

Now the anti-CFC campaign WAS needed, the evidence that CFC release was damaging the ozone layer was overwhelming. CFCs were also stated to be a more potent "greenhouse gas".

Energy efficiency is a good thing for many reasons, and a valid end in itself.

**Stuart C** · 09-02-2010, 00:13

The problem is that Climate Change has many causes, some of which are actually quite complex. It's not right to state conclusively (as various governments have done) that Carbon is the cause, or CFC use is the cause. I am not denying that they contribute but I think it's a massive oversimplification to say they are the cause.

martyh · 09-02-2010, 00:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

The problem is that Climate Change has many causes, some of which are actually quite complex. It's not right to state conclusively (as various governments have done) that Carbon is the cause, or CFC use is the cause. I am not denying that they contribute but I think it's a massive oversimplification to say they are the cause.

and don't forget that there is no definitive proof that global warming is man made there is also a lot of evidence that it occures naturaly although i grant that we can be a factor but not the course

downquark1 · 09-02-2010, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

and don't forget that there is no definitive proof that global warming is man made there is also a lot of evidence that it occures naturaly although i grant that we can be a factor but not the course

What is definite proof?

**Stuart C** · 09-02-2010, 00:27

Is there such a thing in Science? Even theories that have been proved are sometimes later disproved.

downquark1 · 09-02-2010, 00:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Is there such a thing in Science? Even theories that have been proved are sometimes later disproved.

ok i'll rephrase that. What would convince you otherwise?

nomadking · 09-02-2010, 00:38

The Earth has been a lot warmer than it is now and later cooled, it also has been cooler than it is now and then got warmer, all this without Man being involved.

Mick Fisher · 09-02-2010, 00:39

The only certainty in all this climate change mess is that Government, Business and Science are milking it to death for every penny they can squeeze out of us.

Slybacon · 09-02-2010, 00:47

"there is also a lot of evidence that it occures naturaly"

Would you like to supply a reference or link to this evidence? I'm not holding my breath on this one - I have asked several times for evidence for the claims of global warming deniers (on various blogs) but no one ever comes up with any. This probably tells you all you need to know about the arguments against global warming - all the evidence that stands up to analysis points in one direction.

**Stuart C** · 09-02-2010, 00:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by downquark1

ok i'll rephrase that. What would convince you otherwise?

Otherwise compared to what? I have not stated whether I believe that global warming is man made or not. I have merely stated that I do not believe it to have a single cause.

downquark1 · 09-02-2010, 00:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart C

Otherwise compared to what? I have not stated whether I believe that global warming is man made or not. I have merely stated that I do not believe it to have a single cause.

It was not really addressed at you, I realised my previous question was more nebulous than I meant.

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 23:55 ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slybacon

"there is also a lot of evidence that it occures naturaly"

Would you like to supply a reference or link to this evidence? I'm not holding my breath on this one - I have asked several times for evidence for the claims of global warming deniers (on various blogs) but no one ever comes up with any. This probably tells you all you need to know about the arguments against global warming - all the evidence that stands up to analysis points in one direction.

Well I think he's talking about what nomadking said, the very fact that historically it has changed without human intervention.

Proves nothing of course.

injuneer · 09-02-2010, 09:12

I always understood that climate change does occur naturally but we have accelerated the change in the last 100 years or so. Personally I don't believe you can pump millions of tons of CO2 (& other noxious substances) into the atmosphere & not expect it to do anything. I'm sure if we just go on treating the planet like a bottomless dustbin then we can only expect to reap the consequences. Every action we take now has consequences for the future generations but humans are generally short term thinkers who can't even contemplate that anything will change, ultimately I don't think our children will be thanking us for the legacy!