This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

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

    Votes: 8 5.2%

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

    Votes: 12 7.8%

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

    Votes: 46 30.1%

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

    Votes: 6 3.9%

  • Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

    Votes: 79 51.6%

  • Other (plus reasons)

    Votes: 7 4.6%
  • Total voters
    153
Jump to new
Knobby22 said:
How can Andrew say there has been no global warming for 17 years when we just had our hottest year ever?
Click to expand...

Andrew did not say it, he is only the messenger.......he is just conveying the facts as they come to hand....one hot year does not make confirmation of Global Warming........Anyway, it is not Global Warming any more......The alarmist prefer to use modern term Climate Change......now why did they change from Global warming to Climate change.....well, I guess they must have had good reason.
 

Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny

ad infitum, ad nausem. ad infitum, ad nausem. ad infitum, ad nausem. ad infitum, ad nausem.
 

So I guess that puts the Alarmist in to a shade of grey.
 

I heard that "Climate Change" was coined by the denier camp, the "skeptics".

They hired some consultant and they figured the stats just can't be denied - that the world is getting warmer - and so instead of "global warming", let's neutralize that and call it "climate change"... you know, like the weather always changing with the season - all natural.

It's bad if people hear that the world is heating up; less of a problem if wild weathers are just part of the change in the climate.
 
Not looking good for the deniers. Skeptics are becoming more attuned to events.

Recent stories: Look up your own links

Woodside Chief slams coal as dirty fuel, bad for environment and global warming.
G8 decides to remove carbon from economies by 2100.
Satellite data shows sea level rise rate is accelerating.
Australia at increased risk of flash flooding as temperatures warm: study - shows flash flooding has increased over last 20 years.
 
Bigger threats to humanity -

  1. Asteroid.
  2. Massive geological events, earthquakes.
  3. ISIS obtaining nuclear weapons.
  4. North Korea using nuclear weapons because Kim Jong-un got offended by a fat boy joke.
  5. Russia using nuclear weapons to defend their right to invade the Ukraine.
 

I would include the threat of a virus of some sort and also biological weaponry.
 
noco said:
The Islamic State is working on it as we speak...It won't be long.
Click to expand...

Also they are now almost in a position where they can buy a nuke from Pakistan....the only ones that will stop them is the US, it seems they're the only thing between us and Armageddon.
 
Knobby22 said:
Woodside Chief slams coal as dirty fuel, bad for environment and global warming.
Click to expand...

That's just business since Woodside is in the business of selling oil and gas.

I doubt that Woodside would be willing to point out that the LNG they're producing is only marginally cleaner than coal once the energy required to turn raw gas into LNG is accounted for.

They'd likely be even less keen on lowering domestic gas prices to as to make gas more competitive with coal locally. That would hurt the bottom line, and businesses aren't known for voluntarily doing that.

This one is just business. It suits a gas company quite nicely to promote gas over coal so that's what they're doing.
 
sails said:
+100

Seems to be used by those who have insufficient evidence to support their argument causing them to resort to undignified name calling and insults
Click to expand...

Pfft

There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
Try to get your heads around it.
 
Knobby22 said:
Pfft

There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
Try to get your heads around it.
Click to expand...

And you could add Climate Alarmists, Climate clowns - should I go on...

Surely it's unnecessary to add the name calling?
 
Knobby22 said:
There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
Click to expand...

The sensible position on anything which hasn't actually happened yet is to be skeptical but open to evidence in either direction unless we're talking about a pattern which has previously occurred with 100% reliability (eg it gets light every morning and dark at night - that could be considered as 100% certain).

That concept goes for everything really. If it's in the future then it is not certain. Just because you're sitting on a plane on the ground in Sydney and expecting to fly to Adelaide doesn't mean the plane will actually take off, fly and land in Adelaide. It could stay on the ground for whatever reason. It could take off then land again in Sydney. It could take off and land somewhere completely different, say Canberra. A rational person would thus take the skeptical view - the plane will probably fly to Adelaide and land there but it's not absolutely certain.

Until we actually get to 2050, 2100 or whenever, there's no absolute certainty as to what's going to happen with the climate. We can make predictions yes, but ultimately they are just predictions (hopefully) based on the best available knowledge at the time. They may be right or they may be wrong, humans generally can't predict things with 100% accuracy. Heck, we can't even predict the stock market with certainty and yet humans collectively have absolute control over it.

So I'm a skeptic and consider that to be the sensible position to take. Based on what I know, I do think the climate has changed measurably in some locations at least over the past 40 years and I do see the argument of a link between climate and CO2 as being very plausible. But we're still learning about natural systems and as such it is not possible to say with 100% certainty exactly what the cause of any change is - although we could say that changing the composition of the atmosphere is probably having some effect.

Denier - not rational as there's insufficient evidence to prove that CO2 etc does NOT cause a change in climate.

100% certain - not rational for the same reason. We have a lot of theories, but there may well be some other reason for changes in climate that we simply aren't aware of.

Skeptical - having an open mind seems sensible on any subject where there is uncertainty. That goes for everything from climate to who will win the AFL Grand Final this year and what the RBA's next move will be. When something is in the future, the outcome is never certain until it happens.
 

Indeed yes, but the question is a lot more important than who will win the AFL grand final.

If we wait for 50 years to see what happens in regards to climate, and the worse predictions are then validated, then it's too late to do anything about it.

Surely this must be a "prepare for the worse case" scenario, on the grounds that if we do that and nothing happens then we may have wasted our money, or we can say that our precautions have avoided disaster. The millenium bug scenario comes to mind.

If the current scientific consensus based on available data is that there is a problem, that it's serious and needs to be handled, then the prudent thing to do is to take action. The evidence is that the ozone holes have diminished since the crackdowns on CFC's, so we can make a difference to the climate if we try. Of course there will always be things like volcanoes that we can't do anything about, but they make a very small contribution to CO2 compared to human emmissions.

Scepticism is fine when the outcome doesn't really matter, in this case though it could be fatal.
 
SirRumpole said:
Indeed yes, but the question is a lot more important than who will win the AFL...

Scepticism is fine when the outcome doesn't really matter, in this case though it could be fatal.
Click to expand...

Absolutely

A sensible post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Poll on Action on Global Warming
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
11K
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Terminal Triangle: Peak Oil, climate change and global economic meltdown
Replies
7
Views
6K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...