Rubbish! The 'deniers and skeptics' are equally vehement, biased and unscientific in their rants.
Look at your post (quoted). You start by complaining of being a "realist ... attacked by alarmists", then go on to attack people who don't agree with you ("idealogical mindsets of ... brainwashed acolytes").
Bit hypocritical mate.
Those who do are attacked by the alarmists with sneers and slurs in a deluge of so much obfuscation, muddled thinking and idealogical nonsense, that to respond you have to stoop to their level.
Really?Climate optimists would dearly like to just stick to the science... not junk science such as assigning simple storm surges to rising sea levels, real science, but we are forced to play by the alarmist's rules as per above.
...
Weather and climate are not matters of faith. They are matters of science. when the skeptics can model present trends to prove an alternative view, I will sit up and take notice.
LCL... For example, estimates of sea level changes over the next 50 years have a median of around 40 cm. Forecasts of tens or hundreds of metres are either invented or extreme outliers on the spectrum of forecasts. Good PR but bad science.
Fundamentally, what I'm worried about most is that we end up with BOTH scenarios.What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?
We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.
There is a particularly excellent argument on YOU Tube which doesn't try to convince anyone of the certainty of Climate Change but does show that the safest course is to act furiously as if the scientists are right.
How does the argument go ? Put simply if climate change is crock of sxxx but we plough billions into renewable energy, changes in lifestyle , business upheaval ect the possible worst consequences could be a global depression, poverty and so on.
However if climate change is real and we don't take action then the consequences will be even more disastrous than simply a global depression. We are talking the full catastrophe. Sunk cities, destroyed landscapes, floods, droughts, total collapse.
The conversation doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the science behind global warming. It just gives us a clear understanding of the choices we face and the consequences of action or inaction.
It is only 10 minutes long. Whatever your views on the science of the issue the logic of how to approach the situation is worth considering. I'd be interested to hear responses.
Cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
wayneL from another thread said:Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society... much more than those bleating on about it...
Action.LCL
PS You don't mention your preference - action or inaction ?
btw, lol -Action.
But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change.
( ... initially , till others come on board etc etc ) ...
....LCL
...
As for the "outliers" question ...
as I've said before, anyone (as I believe I've heard Andrew Bolt proclaim) that says that global warming stopped in 1998 , been getting cooler since etc - when 1998 was a serious El Niño spike year - is talking nonsense.
Forget bad science - it's "spinning the stats" as only the best (or worst) policians would even attempt.
If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits. Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.Action.
But only if "action" means just that - action and not some other objective being pursued under the guise of climate change.
I'm not convinced on the science, but to the extent that we can reduce fossil fuel use without too much disruption we ought to do it. Fossil fuels will run out eventually anyway so in the long term we're going renewable whether we like it or not.
Cut emissions? Yes.
Implement an economic treaty under the guise of climate change that actually results in higher emissions? No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by basilio View Post
What is the worst thing that can happen regarding Climate Change?
We have gone back and forth on the ins and outs of climate change. We have probably agreed that we can't be certain about what will happen. The clearest fact is that by continuing to debate the issue we end up doing nothing about it and facing whatever consequence occurs.
There is a particularly excellent argument on YOU Tube which doesn't try to convince anyone of the certainty of Climate Change but does show that the safest course is to act furiously as if the scientists are right.
How does the argument go ? Put simply if climate change is crock of sxxx but we plough billions into renewable energy, changes in lifestyle , business upheaval ect the possible worst consequences could be a global depression, poverty and so on.
However if climate change is real and we don't take action then the consequences will be even more disastrous than simply a global depression. We are talking the full catastrophe. Sunk cities, destroyed landscapes, floods, droughts, total collapse.
The conversation doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the science behind global warming. It just gives us a clear understanding of the choices we face and the consequences of action or inaction.
It is only 10 minutes long. Whatever your views on the science of the issue the logic of how to approach the situation is worth considering. I'd be interested to hear responses.
Cheers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Fundamentally, what I'm worried about most is that we end up with BOTH scenarios.
1. Australia acts to cut emissions and ends up with scenario 1 for this country.
2. The world as a whole continues to emit more and more CO2 thus bringing about scenario 2 for the whole planet, including Australia and others who did act.
How realistic is this scenario? It is the exact path we're following right now. Emissions continue to rise and will do so even if the various agreements to stop it are implemented. So scenario 2 is highly likely if the science is right. Meanwhile various groups are proposing that we seriously risk scenario 1 as well.
IEA calls for “Clean Energy New Deal”
At the UN climate talks (COP14) in Poznan, Poland, IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka called for a “clean energy new deal,” saying that countries must act now to develop renewable energies and make traditional energy sources more efficient, such as capturing carbon released by coal-burning power plants. “It’s not an exaggeration to say the world stands at a crossroads on climate change. The science is clear – action is urgently needed,” Mr. Tanaka added.
“It’s not an exaggeration to say the world stands at a crossroads on climate change. The science is clear – action is urgently needed,” Mr. Tanaka added.
Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst
"What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."
As Ice Melts, Antarctic Bedrock Is on the Move
As ice melts away from Antarctica, parts of the continental bedrock are rising in response -- and other parts are sinking, scientists have discovered.
The finding will give much needed perspective to satellite instruments that measure ice loss on the continent, and help improve estimates of future sea level rise.
http://www.physorg.com/news148563736.html
Earth has warmed 0.4 C in 30 years
A map of Earth's climate changes since December 1, 1978, (when satellite sensors started tracking the climate) doesn't show a uniform global warming. It looks more like a thermometer: Hot at the top, cold at the bottom and varying degrees of warm in the middle.
This is a pattern of warming not forecast by any of the major global climate models.
http://www.physorg.com/news148239677.html
That is precisely the situation.If the so called high polluters, e.g. aluminium industry, wish to continue without change, as I understand it they can do this, simply buying carbon credits. Then if this renders their business non-viable in Australia, they say they will just move offshore where no such scheme is in place.
If this is correct, then I am mystified as to how any benefit will accrue to any global emissions situation.
well said smurf –
except that a small step is all we might be able to achieve (at first , initially , till others come on board etc etc )
Gee Spooly, what do you want them to do ? m8,"action is urgently needed" = Laughable.
"[Jim Hansen's paper, in which he "suggested a joint review by Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research findings since the IPCC report.comment"- with a view to upgrading them in terms of the dangers we face] = Even funnier ...
Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential
Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst
As ministers and officials gather in Poznan one year ahead of the Copenhagen summit on global warming, the second part of a major series looks at the crucial issue of targets
David Adam , The Guardian, Tuesday 9 December 2008
At a high-level academic conference on global warming at Exeter University this summer, climate scientist Kevin Anderson stood before his expert audience and contemplated a strange feeling. He wanted to be wrong. Many of those in the room who knew what he was about to say felt the same. His conclusions had already caused a stir in scientific and political circles. Even committed green campaigners said the implications left them terrified.
Anderson, an expert at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at Manchester University, was about to send the gloomiest dispatch yet from the frontline of the war against climate change.
Despite the ... scientific warnings, the media headlines and the corporate promises, he would say, carbon emissions were soaring way out of control - far above even the bleak scenarios considered by last year's report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Stern review. The battle against dangerous climate change had been lost, and the world needed to prepare for things to get very, very bad.
"As an academic I wanted to be told that it was a very good piece of work and that the conclusions were sound," Anderson said. "But as a human being I desperately wanted someone to point out a mistake, and to tell me we had got it completely wrong."
Nobody did. The cream of the UK climate science community sat in stunned silence as Anderson pointed out that carbon emissions since 2000 have risen much faster than anyone thought possible, driven mainly by the coal-fuelled economic boom in the developing world. So much extra pollution is being pumped out, he said, that most of the climate targets debated by politicians and campaigners are fanciful at best, and "dangerously misguided" at worst.
... he said it was "improbable" that levels could now be restricted to 650 parts per million (ppm).
...At 650ppm, the same fuzzy science says the world would face a catastrophic 4C average rise. And even that bleak future, Anderson said, could only be achieved if rich countries adopted "draconian emission reductions within a decade". Only an unprecedented "planned economic recession" might be enough. The current financial woes would not come close.
Lost cause ... more vote for 650ppm than 450ppm as the more likely outcome.
Garnaut gets a mention:-Bob Watson, chief scientist at the Environment Department and a former head of the IPCC, warned this year that the world needed to prepare for a 4C rise, which would wipe out hundreds of species, bring extreme food and water shortages in vulnerable countries and cause floods that would displace hundreds of millions of people.
..."We must alert everybody that at the moment we're at the very top end of the worst case [emissions] scenario. I think we should be striving for 450 [ppm] but I think we should be prepared that 550 [ppm] is a more likely outcome." Hitting the 450ppm target, he said, would be "unbelievably difficult".
... risk a failure to agree that "would haunt humanity until the end of time".
...Garnaut :- "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm - a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of business as usual."
Henry Derwent, former head of the UK's international climate negotiating team and now president of the International Emissions Trading Association, said a new climate treaty was unlikely to include a stabilisation goal - either 450ppm or 550ppm.
"You've got to avoid talking and thinking in those terms because otherwise the politics reaches a dead end," he said. Many small island states are predicted to be swamped by rising seas with global warming triggered by carbon levels as low as 400ppm. "It's really difficult for countries to sign up to something that loses them half their territory. It's not going to work."
A new agreement in Copenhagen should concentrate instead on shorter term targets, such as firm emission reductions by 2020, he said.
Earlier this year, Jim Hansen, senior climate scientist with Nasa, published a paper that said the world's carbon targets needed to be urgently revised ... He used reconstructions of the Earth's past climate to show that a target of 350ppm, significantly below where we are today, is needed to "preserve a planet similar to that on which civilisation developed and to which life on Earth is adapted". Hansen has suggested a joint review by Britain's Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences of all research findings since the IPCC report. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the IPCC, argues that suggestions the IPCC report is out of date is "not a valid position at all".
He said: "What the IPCC produces is not based on two years of literature, but 30 or 40 years of literature. We're not dealing with short-term weather changes, we're talking about major changes in our climate system. I refuse to accept that a few papers are in any way going to influence the long-term projections the IPCC has come up with."
At Defra, Watson said: "Even without the new information there was enough to make most policy makers think that urgent action was absolutely essential. The new information only strengthens that and pushes it even harder. It was already very urgent to start with. It's now become very, very urgent."
AJThere is also the distinct possibility that small steps WON'T make any significant change to emissions but WILL still cause some economic and social pain
It says developed nations including Britain, the US and Australia, would have to slash carbon dioxide emissions by 5% each year over the next decade to hit the 450ppm target. Britain's Climate Change Act 2008, the most ambitious legislation of its kind in the world, calls for reductions of about 3% each year to 2050.
Garnaut, a professorial fellow in economics at Melbourne University, said: "Achieving the objective of 450ppm would require tighter constraints on emissions than now seem likely in the period to 2020 ... The only alternative would be to impose even tighter constraints on developing countries from 2013, and that does not appear to be realistic at this time."
The report adds: "The awful arithmetic means that exclusively focusing on a 450ppm outcome, at this moment, could end up providing another reason for not reaching an international agreement to reduce emissions. In the meantime, the cost of excessive focus on an unlikely goal could consign to history any opportunity to lock in an agreement for stabilising at 550ppm - a more modest, but still difficult, international outcome. An effective agreement around 550ppm would be vastly superior to continuation of business as usual."
Let's face it. The developing world ain't going to cut back on pollution, and there's billions of them.
Ergo, nothing we do is going to make a difference. Why should we trash our economies if it won't make a difference?
And why should I have anxiety about it? I had the foresight not to have children. Most importantly, why should I stand being preached at by hypocrites.
**** it, I'm pulling up the ladder Jack. I'm going shopping for decent 4x4 (lot's of cheap X5s going cheap from ex BTL magnates at the mo.) and I'm cranking up the central heating... and I'm getting rid of those stupid flouro bulbs, they're sh!te.
I'm now in favour of the extra lane on the M25 and the new runway at Heathrow. I want to fly to Paris etc several times a year.
Hasta la vista baby.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?