Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

--B-- · 5 December 2007

2020hindsight said:
B,
Japan Spain etc will pay their fines with their tax dollars - you needn't worry your little selfish breast about it.

not quite sure of the point of this statement 2020. Ive basically spelled that out for you. just taking an opportunity to lay some abuse? seems quite the style of greenies et al who get angry when people disagree with them.

As for our contribution to the planetary effort - try going to Spain and/or Japan and bragging how clever we are / Howard was in avoiding the taxes they are paying. Maybe you'll be lucky and escape with some spittal in your eye - you'll have done a great job in reaffirming to those countries that Australia (worst co2e per capita other than opec) and USA are just selfish people who don't dserve to be included in polite society.

hmmmm.. lots of dribble and hardly anything constructive to say.. imagine my surprise...

well whether or not you voted to ignore global warming or not (assuming you voted UNPROVEN) , either way, gilbo, it is you in the minority here.

gilbo's point is completely valid. whether or not 'global warming' exists its man kinds contribution (AGM) thats important.. so far this is unproven and is based on guesswork and NOTHING else.

and firstly, lets get this straight - we have seen decreasing temps over the past 9-10 years - hardly a stellar example of the claimed catastrophic global warming. (its ok hypists, close your ears to that one)..

--B-- · 5 December 2007

So_Cynical said:
Well thats what happens when your govt makes a mistake, we now have 7 years to do what we could of easy done in 17 years....instead of talking about clean coal plants we would be building them.

oh sure. the kyoto protocol has been around for 17 years huh? dont let facts get in the way of a good story i suppose....

skint · 5 December 2007

--B-- said:
gilbo's point is completely valid. whether or not 'global warming' exists its man kinds contribution (AGM) thats important.. so far this is unproven and is based on guesswork and NOTHING else.

and firstly, lets get this straight - we have seen decreasing temps over the past 9-10 years - hardly a stellar example of the claimed catastrophic global warming. (its ok hypists, close your ears to that one)..

I'm not quite sure why you believe your opinion to be better than the overwhelming view of the global scientific community. Its not guesswork, the reality of climate change has been formed from a confluence of a staggering amount of research and data.
Your claim that global and domestic temperatures have been falling shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Below are the websites for historic temperatures, both globally and within Australia. They're unimbiguously rising.

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6228765.stm

--B-- · 5 December 2007

skint said:
I'm not quite sure why you believe your opinion to be better than the overwhelming view of the global scientific community. Its not guesswork, the reality of climate change has been formed from a confluence of a staggering amount of research and data.

it is not simply my opinion skint. the IPCC reports state they are "only 90% certain" and this is based on computer modelling. computer modeling is guesswork where figures are fed into hypothesised models.

the fact remains the level of human contribution to GW (anthropogenic global warming) remains unproven by science.

Your claim that global and domestic temperatures have been falling shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Below are the websites for historic temperatures, both globally and within Australia. They're unimbiguously rising.

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6228765.stm

lol... come on skint. firstly i never mentioned domestic temps.

this is from your own article:

They say there is a 60% chance that the average surface temperature will match or exceed the current record from 1998.

as i said, the world temps have never been as warm as they were around 9-10 years ago. ie: since the high of 1998. if we are in a period of catastrohpic global warming shouldnt we see temps increasing? a 60% guess is hardly conclusive evidence of anything now is it....

skint · 5 December 2007

--B-- said:
it is not simply my opinion skint. the IPCC reports state they are "only 90% certain" and this is based on computer modelling. computer modeling is guesswork where figures are fed into hypothesised models.

the fact remains the level of human contribution to GW (anthropogenic global warming) remains unproven by science.

lol... come on skint. firstly i never mentioned domestic temps.

this is from your own article:

as i said, the world temps have never been as warm as they were around 9-10 years ago. ie: since the high of 1998. if we are in a period of catastrohpic global warming shouldnt we see temps increasing? a 60% guess is hardly conclusive evidence of anything now is it....

The IPCC acknowledged that its estimates were conservative. Nonetheless, would you insure your house if there was a 90% chance it would burn down?

I provided domestic temps to illustrate that the extent to which Aust. is consistent with the global trend. Regardless of the commentary in the article, the graphs speak for themselves. Might be time to wake up and smell the coffee. By your own admission, the chance of you being correct is 10% at best, and even that is drawing the long bow.

--B-- · 5 December 2007

skint said:
The IPCC acknowledged that its estimates were conservative. Nonetheless, would you insure your house if there was a 90% chance it would burn down?

90% chance based on a guess is fairly flimsy. in any case, were not discussing whether to insure a house we're discussing the guesswork of the IPCC. do you think we can 'insure' the climate?

I provided domestic temps to illustrate that the extent to which Aust. is consistent with the global trend.

the fact remains that global mean temperatures have not exceeded the highs of 1998. should we see increases if we are in fact in the middle of catastrophic global warming?

Regardless of the commentary in the article, the graphs speak for themselves.

see above.

Might be time to wake up and smell the coffee.

im simply stating the facts skint. the typical counter of those who seek to 'convert' people who ask for scientific proof is usually something along the lines you just posted... hardly a compelling argument.

By your own admission, the chance of you being correct is 10% at best, and even that is drawing the long bow.

.

absolutely incorrect, but nice try all the same. ive stated the IPCC admit that the chances their own guesswork is true is only 90%.

im not saying im incorrect or correct skint, merely stating the the sceince behind AGW is inconclusive at best. 'waking up and smelling the coffee' doesnt cut it for me.

chops_a_must · 5 December 2007

--B-- said:
90% chance based on a guess is fairly flimsy. in any case, were not discussing whether to insure a house we're discussing the guesswork of the IPCC. do you think we can 'insure' the climate?

the fact remains that global mean temperatures have not exceeded the highs of 1998. should we see increases if we are in fact in the middle of catastrophic global warming?

Nice way to change the subject. But yes, this is about insuring the climate, that's the whole point.

Do you think shares breaking out continue to set higher highs for every minute of every day? No? But it certainly doesn't break a trend.

The obvious selfishness of people on this thread is absolutely astounding.

--B-- · 5 December 2007

chops_a_must said:
Nice way to change the subject. But yes, this is about insuring the climate, that's the whole point.

i thought i was steering it back on topic chops.

im not disputing that its in humans best interests to ensure our climate is stable and "healthy" what i do "question" is the extent that humans have on supposed global warming.

The obvious selfishness of people on this thread is absolutely astounding.

heres another personal jibe. we're discussing a hot (pun intended. lol) issue in the world at the moment and debate oon such matters is always healthy for both sides.

those who simply disregard any challenge to the issues, and label those who raise questions as selfish, are simply ignoring the FACT that many questions surrounding the issue remain unanswered.

actually i seem to remember you displaying your level of ignorance on the subject a month or so ago in another thread. i think to label myself and anyone else who remains unconvinced about AWG as 'selfish' is extremely shortsighted and hardly warrants your inclusion in any debate.

chops_a_must · 5 December 2007

--B-- said:
i thought i was steering it back on topic chops.

im not disputing that its in humans best interests to ensure our climate is stable and "healthy" what i do "question" is the extent that humans have on supposed global warming.

No, you are opposing methods of correction.

--B-- said:
those who simply disregard any challenge to the issues, and label those who raise questions as selfish, are simply ignoring the FACT that many questions surrounding the issue remain unanswered.

actually i seem to remember you displaying your level of ignorance on the subject a month or so ago in another thread. i think to label myself and anyone else who remains unconvinced about AWG as 'selfish' is extremely shortsighted and hardly warrants your inclusion in any debate.

I'm not saying they have been answered. But not doing anything because of this is akin to not treating someone with an illness, because we can't work out the exact cause.

That debate ended because I pointed out that China produces a greater percentage of its electricity through renewable means than does just about every western country.

But given my studies, I'm probably more than qualified to comment on this debate. But, thanks for that.

professor_frink · 5 December 2007

professor_frink said:
On the subject of Kyoto, is there any evidence at this stage that suggest that it's actually working?

How on earth do they even measure it

--B-- has given his opinion on my question yesterday, I'd be interested to hear from some people from the other side of the argument.

Has Kyoto resulted in an overall reductions in emissions?

Has it allowed for greater development of renewable technologies so that even if we haven't reduced overall emissions, we have begun to walk down a path that will make the planet more sustainable?

And lastly, where does the money go from countries that are fined for not meeting targets? Does it go to the UN to finance renewable technologies to further the cause, or what?

--B-- · 5 December 2007

chops_a_must said:
No, you are opposing methods of correction.

really? perhaps you can show me where ive 'opposed methods of correction'

i assume you believe kyoto is a method of 'correcting' the climate?

as ive stated numersous times, i 'question' whether anything we humans can or should do can 'correct' the climate and whether it needs correcting at all.

I'm not saying they have been answered.

ahh, so we agree.

But not doing anything because of this is akin to not treating someone with an illness, because we can't work out the exact cause.

sure. but arent we debating whether the 'illness' exists in the first place?

That debate ended because I pointed out that China produces a greater percentage of its electricity through renewable means than does just about every western country.

did it? i thought it ended when you were shown to have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the kyoto protocol.

But given my studies, I'm probably more than qualified to comment on this debate. But, thanks for that.

oh goody, you're an expert. please enlighten me then, why has the eaerth never been hotter than 1998 when we are supposedly in a period of catastrophic climate change / global warming?

--B-- · 5 December 2007

professor_frink said:
And lastly, where does the money go from countries that are fined for not meeting targets? Does it go to the UN to finance renewable technologies to further the cause, or what?

countries who exceed their targets must by carbon "credits"

these credits are usually owned by investors or industrial polluters who have accumulated a surplus of credits.

chops_a_must · 5 December 2007

professor_frink said:
--B-- has given his opinion on my question yesterday, I'd be interested to hear from some people from the other side of the argument.

Has Kyoto resulted in an overall reductions in emissions?

No, but it has slowed the growth.

professor_frink said:
Has it allowed for greater development of renewable technologies so that even if we haven't reduced overall emissions, we have begun to walk down a path that will make the planet more sustainable?

Yes.

professor_frink said:
And lastly, where does the money go from countries that are fined for not meeting targets? Does it go to the UN to finance renewable technologies to further the cause, or what?

Yes. As far as I'm aware it is used for clean energy development in countries that may not be able to afford it, but the overshoot of emissions must be made up for by credits. Whether that is by carbon sinks, or clean energy developments.

skint · 5 December 2007

--B-- said:
90% chance based on a guess is fairly flimsy. in any case, were not discussing whether to insure a house we're discussing the guesswork of the IPCC. do you think we can 'insure' the climate?
.

Its pretty clear your not familiar with statistical analysis. Yeah, I know "lies, damn lies and statistics". The fact of the matter is statistics are vital component of just about every discipline from economics to medicine. In fact just about any discipline, including climate change. A 90% probability indicates that, at very least, there is a 90% chance that the conclusions drawn from the research, have not occured by chance. These figures aren't merely a guess pulled out of thin air. Your right in saying we're not talking about a house. It is something much more serious. Can you insure the climate? The insurance is taking measures to mitigate against the effects.

--B-- said:
the fact remains that global mean temperatures have not exceeded the highs of 1998. should we see increases if we are in fact in the middle of catastrophic global warming?

Are you able to read a graph? Since the late 70's, all years have been above average and rising, except for the 1998 anomoly which was much higher. 2007 looks likely to exceed even that year. Since 1980, all years have been hotter than all years prior to 1980, bar one.

--B-- said:
im not saying im incorrect or correct skint, merely stating the the sceince behind AGW is inconclusive at best. 'waking up and smelling the coffee' doesnt cut it for me.

Sometimes its best to go with overwhelming evidence, when 100% proof is not possible. While the laws of gravity, for example, are not proven, all observations, to date, are consistent with them. Are these laws guesswork? I'll use another analogy. If you went to 100 doctors and 99 told you to take penicillin to cure a terminal illness, they may be wrong. Who do you listen to? The 99 expert opinions that are in agreement or the 1 dissenting expert opinion and your own inexpert opinion. Same situation with climate change.

chops_a_must · 5 December 2007

--B-- said:
really? perhaps you can show me where ive 'opposed methods of correction'

i assume you believe kyoto is a method of 'correcting' the climate?

as ive stated numersous times, i 'question' whether anything we humans can or should do can 'correct' the climate and whether it needs correcting at all.

Your condescension towards any action could be seen as such.

No bit of paper can solve climate change. The framework written on it however, can help.

Don't you think we should at least try?

--B-- said:
sure. but arent we debating whether the 'illness' exists in the first place?

It's pretty much a consensus now.

--B-- said:
did it? i thought it ended when you were shown to have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the kyoto protocol.

No. You want China to cut emissions. I pointed out what I said above.

--B-- said:
oh goody, you're an expert. please enlighten me then, why has the eaerth never been hotter than 1998 when we are supposedly in a period of catastrophic climate change / global warming?

Even within a trend, there are outliers.

We aren't in a period of catastrophic climate change, yet.

Unless there is something constructive you have to say, I'm certainly not going to respond. This kind of argument is 10 years old, and if we keep going over the same old ground, nothing gets done.

Rafa · 5 December 2007

There are only two things that can actuallly deliver on CO2 cuts...

1. rampant improvement in technology to harness the CLEAN enery nature provides, to power our lifestyle...

2. a reduction in our expectations of what the good life is... (i.e. if everyones aim is to live in Al Gore esq super mac mansions, that frankly, i don't care what any one says...but this problem ain't going to be solved).

To answer Prof Frink...

In terms of the Kyoto per se (and Al Gore)... they are both a joke.... but where their real value lies is in implanting the principle / thought seed into the minds of business and the gen public.

Because, in the end the problem will ONLY be solved when everyone, esp big business AND the general public, starts considering the CO2 impact when making decision.

Thanks to the seed sown by Kyoto and political oppurtunists like Al Gore, that is starting to happen now in a big way... and for something as serious as Global warming, it can't happen soon enough

--B-- · 5 December 2007

skint said:
Its pretty clear your not familiar with statistical analysis. Yeah, I know "lies, damn lies and statistics". The fact of the matter is statistics are vital component of just about every discipline from economics to medicine. In fact just about any discipline, including climate change. A 90% probability indicates that, at very least, there is a 90% chance that the conclusions drawn from the research, have not occured by chance. These figures aren't merely a guess pulled out of thin air. Your right in saying we're not talking about a house. It is something much more serious. Can you insure the climate? The insurance is taking measures to mitigate against the effects.

but we're not talking about statistical analysis. Its computer modeling. they feed numbers into their hypothesised models. nothing more.

Are you able to read a graph? Since the late 70's, all years have been above average and rising, except for the 1998 anomoly which was much higher. 2007 looks likely to exceed even that year. Since 1980, all years have been hotter than all years prior to 1980, bar one.

yes its amazing but the climate changes. 30 years of data in the grand scheme of things is not conclusive evidence. give me some time and ill fine some pretty graphs which go a little further back to illustrate the fact that the climate has and always will fluctuate.

im sure youre aware of the dreaded ice age predicted in the 70's.

Sometimes its best to go with overwhelming evidence, when 100% proof is not possible.

i dont dispute this. i do dispute that overwhelming evidence exists that humans have caused 'global warming' through co2 emissions.

While the laws of gravity, for example, are not proven, all observations, to date, are consistent with them.

but not all observations are consistent that humans have 'caused' global warming.

Are these laws guesswork? I'll use another analogy. If you went to 100 doctors and 99 told you to take penicillin to cure a terminal illness, they may be wrong. Who do you listen to? The 99 expert opinions that are in agreement or the 1 dissenting expert opinion and your own inexpert opinion. Same situation with climate change.

.
yes ive heard these analogies time and time again. but the question still remains,. does the illness exists in the first place.

The Once-ler · 5 December 2007

Global warming, peak oil, overpopulation and peak food seem to be all coming together into one giant problem.

Seeing more and more evidence that food production is peaking, and everything is related.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/poor-put-on-a-starvation-diet/2007/12/04/1196530679058.html

"A revolution in world food prices driven by population growth, economic development, climate change and biofuels is set to make life even worse for the world's poorest people.

For decades food production has outstripped population growth and real food prices have declined, but the world appears to be swinging back into an era where demand will be greater than supply for years to come.

A report on the food predicament says the world's undernourished will still number 772 million in 2020 and higher food prices will cause the poor to shift to even less-balanced diets, with adverse impacts on health in the short and long run. In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of undernourished is expected to rise from 273 million in 2020 to 410 million by 2080.

A global temperature increase of more than 3 degrees could increase food prices by 40 per cent.

As they have become increasingly wealthy, people in developing nations such as China have already helped drive the price of food commodities such as wheat to record levels as they have diversified their diet and started eating more grain-hungry meat and dairy products.

Since 2000 dairy prices have tripled and beef prices have almost doubled, says The World Food Situation:"

There is only one real reason for whats going on, and that's just too many people.

skint · 5 December 2007

chops_a_must said:
Even within a trend, there are outliers.

Touche and also a lot more succint than my post. Even one of the dopiest galahs on the planet, George dubya, who has also been one of the greatest cynics, now concedes the human involvement of humans on CC. For mine, those that are still a decade or two behind in the debate, are probably further down the evolutionary tree than ol' mate George. Speaking of evolution, I wonder what the chances are that --B-- believes evolution is a beat up and that we've only been around for 5-10000 years. Hmm...

--B-- · 5 December 2007

chops_a_must said:
Your condescension towards any action could be seen as such.

ok, so i havent.

No bit of paper can solve climate change. The framework written on it however, can help.

sure.. i dont think kyoto is one such piece of paper.

Don't you think we should at least try?

try what? to 'fix' the climate?

anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. ive never said otherwise.

It's pretty much a consensus now.

oh ok, "pretty much".... sounds a lot like the convincing 90% guesswork figures...

Even within a trend, there are outliers.

sure, like the last 30 years? or is the 'trend' only allowed to be 30 years?

We aren't in a period of catastrophic climate change, yet.

agreed.

Unless there is something constructive you have to say, I'm certainly not going to respond. This kind of argument is 10 years old, and if we keep going over the same old ground, nothing gets done.

i asked you a direct question which you could not answer. my posts have only been constructive and i have not used petty insults such as yourself and others.

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

Other (plus reasons)

--B--

--B--

skint

--B--

skint

--B--

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

--B--

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

professor_frink

Moderator

--B--

--B--

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

skint

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Rafa

--B--

The Once-ler

skint

--B--

Similar threads

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

Other (plus reasons)

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

Moderator

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency