Global warming

DPinBucks

Not on mine, it doesn't.  

But you're right in general.

inkinoo

Having seen your previous posts, I feel that arguing with you would serve no purpose.

There are clearly people on here that believe in MMGW. I take the viewpoint that it is a theory and I have yet to see enough evidence to suggest that the theory holds true; in fact quite the opposite.

What I have seen is a lot of doo-gooders who seem to want to dramatically change our lives with no real evidence to suggest it is going to help.

What would dramatically reduce our demands on the environment is if we controlled the population. Let's stop giving aid to poor countries and let their people die. Let's limit people in Western countries to only 1 child per couple.

Is my suggestion less realistic than those who preach to me about the car I drive and how I heat my house?

inkinoo

With the greatest respect, that is EXACTLY what is happening with the floods in Australia right now ... except MMGW is being blamed.

johntheexpat

Not on this forum it isn't.

And yes, I did start a thread about weather events.  Note, it was about weather events.  If record numbers of weather records start to be broken, then that may be an indicator that the climate is changing faster than at any time recently.

johntheexpat

Like all advances in science, the theory comes first, the evidence follows.  The problem in this case is that the level of evidence required by the cynics is such that the Earth will be screwed before they are convinced.  Others, myself included, take the view that the theory is probably sound enough for us to worry about it and we should do what we can now, while we have a chance.

In other words, we can wait for proof (ie the temperature does rise by 2C on average by 2050) and then worry about it. But worrying then will be pointless because it will be too late.
Or we can start to prepare now, bearing in mind that the science will firm up or fail over time and perhaps get our act together to try and slow down the rate of change so that we have more time, as a species, to adapt.  The worst then is that we have spent a small % of GNP on efficiency measures and burnt a bit less fossil fuel.

As for it being a tax raising 'con', well the Government are going to raise tax somehow.  They could increase income tax (no chance) or indirect taxes.  If they increase taxes on stuff we don't need, we will buy less and they won't get their cut.  Or they can raise taxes on stuff we are addicted to (smokes, drinks and petrol) and they will raise what money they need.  And if we all suddenly stopped using fossil fuel they would tax the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat.  They will get their cut.  Its not a tax raising con its a fact of life.

Now, go and 'dis' the science, and tell us really why MMGW is a load of bull.

sidicks

Seems perfectly reasonable!

Accuracy of models and more importantly completeness (or lack thereof) of models:
1) models calibrated over reatively small data sets, where in many case the data is sparse
2) nature of models focussing on some factors (CO2), placing much less weight on other factors (solar activity) and ignoring negative feedbacks (as it suits them to do so)
3) models unable to explain recent changes (or lack of) and historic changes

The abuse and exaggeration of the results of these (flawed) models is more political than scientific.

Sidicks

johntheexpat

So why not link to an article in which modeling has been done that takes all that into account?  I assume there are lots, but they have been suppressed by the GW mafia.  Perhaps all the work that show MMGW is fake will show up on WikiLeaks soon?  That would be a real coup.

Toko Black

Yes, allowing people to die when you could save them vs' reducing the amount of waste we produce in the first world.

That's getting into the realms of "Let the darkies die so I can still drive my Range Rover, pip pip"

Seriously, do you actually believe that tosh ?

Maybe we can have a lottery and euthanise part of the population Logans Run style instead of making you recycle.

I'm not an eco-warrior, I love big cars, but the science says we are heading for problems.

Toko Black

Who's blaming it on MMGW .... the media, the same ones that happily mislead the public with regard to the prevalence of MMGW skeptics, MMR Autism and any other missinformed drivel they can pedal to get peoples attention.

It may or may not be due to MMGW. The point is that many people seem to declare that since somewhere had a cold snap, that MMGW is nonsense.
This is patently riddiculous, as with global warming we would still get winters, and in some cases potentially colder ones in certain areas if ocean and wind currents alter their paths.

DPinBucks

Not on this forum it isn't.

It's being blamed on an unusually severe La Niña event.

You cannot blame any one unusual event on MMGW. By its nature, GW has climatic effects, and climate, being average weather, is by definition statistical. In weather terms, the effects of MMGW will be an increasing trend of unseasonal and/or severe events. The signs are that this trend is happening, but over-hype by the media, who are prone to latch onto anything they can spin, is not a valid indication.

All the recent unusual weather events (floods in Pakistan and Queensland, cold UK December, etc) could be symptomatic of GW, but GW doesn't cause any of them. It creates the climate (literal and metaphorical) where they become more likely.