Global warming: Fact or Fiction?

johntheexpat

Getting this thread back on track, isn't the argument over fact or fiction somewhat of a red-herring?  There is a theory, with lots of well founded hypotheses and considerable supporting evidence, that man made emissions of CO2 will increase the rate of Global Warming.  It is not fact in the strictest definition of the word.

But, if the theory is right, then what we are doing is altering the rate of change to such an extent that we, as a species, won't be able to adapt fast enough to changing conditions.  Areas that are barely habitable now will become complete no-go areas, with mass migrations and the ensuing turmoil.  Some hugely productive farming areas will fail, while others may come on stream.  But the potential changes could well be enormous and unpredictable.

We may survive the changes perfectly happily.  Or maybe not.  We can't tell the future.

But as an analogy, when you are out driving, you normally slow down when you can't see what is ahead.  You moderate your speed to a level where you can take avoiding action should a problem become apparent.  
So in this case, the scientists have put up warning signs of a potential problem ahead and advised that, until we better understand the problem, we slow down a bit.  Nobody is saying halt all progress or everybody should go and live in caves or anything of the sort.  All that is required is that society tries to reduce its consumption of fossil fuels, quite simply by investing in becoming, for want of a better phrase, more efficient and less wasteful.
There are no plans to halt growth, reduce progress, send us back to the stone age.  In fact the plans are quite simply to implement measures that encourage less fossil fuel use while continuing our economic growth.  Not quite as scary as some would have us believe.

Or we can continue on our merry wasteful and profligate way, oblivious to what we are being told until the proof has arrived and is undeniable.

But by definition of the problem, the theory will only become fact when the climate is changing too fast for us to cope with.  By then it is too late.

Maybe the theory is wrong or flawed.  That's a definite possibility.  But do you want to take the chance?  Do you care so little for the future and the generations to come that you would wilfully discard the only chance we may have to change the future?

Do you feel lucky?

BISHI

Sticking with your driving analogy - It takes experience to read road conditions and this experience is what keeps the older drivers insurance lower and the incidents of accidents far fewer. Your analogy is relevant only in the western world where we have been driving on the oil fuelled capitalist highway for years - the problem the environment has is with the new drivers who have recently got their driving licenses stamped and are hurtling along the motorway trying to catch up with and overtake us in the west by driving their super charged economic engines at full throttle - regardless of the trail of pollution their exhaust pipes are leaving in their wake.

We are correct in the west to attempt to curb our CO2, but with the economic downturn many are saying that, with developing economies such as China and India eclipsing Americas levels of pollution, what is the point of even trying to spend already squeezed budgets on cleaning up their parts of the globe when it is being even more polluted by those snapping at their heels.

GasDad

True - though I'm actually more worried about the quality of the science being done.  The fact that someone like Phil Jones did not have a complete code set for his model (ie you couldn't take his source and data and press build and reproduce his results), is just so amateur to me.


That surely isn't the only debate to have - most of us accept that some level of warning is likely, the question we should really be asking is what provides the most bang for buck in terms of protecting people and their livelihoods - trying to curb C02 now, or alleviate the affects later. Which is more likely to work etc.

MikeTV

Actually, I think the problem is a semantic one. The public misunderstands the term "scientific theory", mistaking it for "hypothesis". But the two concepts are very different. An accepted "scientific theory" is a statement considered true by the scientific community that remains so, until proven false. Whereas an hypothesis is a speculative statement, without supporting evidence. Unfortunately the public use the terms interchangeably and this, coupled with the fact that any scientific advance depends upon the falsification of another theory, leads to public doubt about the truth of any scientific theories!

The "theory of evolution" is another example. Scientists don't doubt the theory, but a large proportion of the population does.

Anyway, just an aside. As you were...

Wild Weasel

This tin foil hat argument is what drives many of the global warming 'scientists' and politicians too. The others are just in it for the money. NASA's James Hansen who helped create the MMGW scam with his infamous testimony to congress in 1988 certainly felt that way. Sympathetic politicians like former Senators Timothy Wirth & Al Gore used cheap tricks to help sell their beliefs too:

                               
Ha Ha ha, so clever.

MikeTV

So the consensus of the scientific community are all part of the tin foil hat brigade? Mmmm. That's not very likely, is it?!

I can clearly understand why rich oil companies might want to suppress claims of MMGW - they have the most to lose. But I just can't really see what a bunch of scientists have to gain by claiming the opposite. And the scientists were already published, long before the public had even heard of global warming, anyway! I've never encountered a rich scientist, and GW has been around a while now. Who is making all this money, that you're referring to? Solar panel manufacturers? - lol

BISHI

Just heard on Radio 4 the UEA s famous 'climate-gate' data has been independently verified as accurate by a couple of US institutions. Looks like there is evidence after all - apparently a whole 1% rise since 1950 .

GasDad

A 1deg rise since 1950 not 1%

Nice to see some better quality science at last - compare their source code release to Jones's. (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)).

I note that they haven't been able to confirm the anthropogenic warming component of the rise - hopefully their forthcoming study of sea temperatures will allow a better understanding of the split between natural cycles and the man made component.

BISHI

...............oops !!!

Still quite a coincidence that  60 years of the most rapid global industrialisation with its corresponding massive deforestation and relative volcanic inactivity corresponds with quite a significant rise in temperature.

Maybe there is a more significant human hand at play in global warming..!

MikeTV

It doesn't surprise me that the findings were in agreement with earlier results. What does surprise me is that it was partialy funded by the "Koch brothers, the billionaire US industrialists, who have also donated large sums to organisations lobbying against acceptance of man-made global warming".BBC

Oops. Bit of an own goal.