(Human Caused) Climate Change, AKA "Global Warming" ... StuckInTheSixties: ... at this point, is there anyone here that doubts the validity of the concept? That thinks it's some sort of hoax or something?  Koalemos: Thats happening without doubt. But it wont be a REAL political and economical issue until we all have to swim to go to work.  SecularSarah: Ah yes, the mythical land of "Nature". We must do our best to protect it from humans because humans aren't a part of Nature. Nature needs protecting because the laws of Nature can be over-ridden by the laws of humans any time.  LittleAntonov: Trying to rule nature would be a more accurate description, as you can see it's still kickin' our asses what with the large natural disasters and you know famine etc.... My dear children if you listen carefully "mother nature" is mad at us and will put us in a time out if we don't start behaving soon  LiptonCambell: Lol I gotta admit I have significant doubt. I've seen charts comparing the global temperature, solar activity, and the use of fossil fuels, and the chart seemed to match the solar activity, with fossil fuels seemed to have little to no effect. Also, I've read that the temperature recording stations have been drastically reduced the last few decades, leaving people to speculate, sometimes "recording" the temperature of countries where no stations exist, simply for convenience. And, of course, there's the fact that, for all the talk of "CO2 emissions", only 3% of the worlds CO2 emissions actually come from humanity- the rest are completely natural, such as forest fires and other decaying plant life. These facts, along with the ambitious and aggressive nature of "environmentalists" while not completely convincing me that global warming isn't happened, does form my doubts. StuckInTheSixties: Glaciers disappearing, the Arctic polar ice cap shrinking, Antarctic ice shelfs disappearing ... The ice business is just one of the many things that concerns me about it. Also the near complete consensus of the scientific community. There's very few holdouts there anymore. LiptonCambell: Come on sixties- you know a "most people agree" argument ain't gunna cut it with me...I believe there is room for more examination and study StuckInTheSixties: Of course. And generally speaking, that's a reasonable position to take. But these aren't just people. It's the scientific community. Let me ask you, Lipton ... Since most of us aren't specifically experts in most of what we discuss and express opinions here (I hold no scientific degrees myself), we are essentially digesting information provided to us from experts, and applying a good dose of our own common sense to it. And of course, opinions on various subjects differ. When that happens, I look for indications of how credible the "expert" is, and how much consensus there is within that field of expertise. So, for example, even though there might be some dude with a physics doctorate that expresses belief in UFOs here and there, the vast majority of astronomers, physicists, etc. are pretty convinced that we're not being visited. So I go along with those guys for the above stated reasons. The upshot of that is that I believe I take a fairly rational approach to "accepting the word of the experts" in these things. So Lipton, what would it take to convince you that global warming was ... > manmade > a serious concern StuckInTheSixties: Hmm ... this is interesting: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change KrAsH: I notice that most scientist dont commit 100% behind their claims.. Why is that? Get out clause perhaps? StuckInTheSixties: I think it's because the nature of this issue is complex, and it's not definitive, only hugely indicative. That's kind of the peril of climate change. The trend becomes definitive when things get REALLY f^%$w% up. Mainly that's just the way scientists tend to state things. I don't think they're hedging, or being cowardly, or however one might express what your implying. KrAsH: Maybe cos they wont commit 100% publicly,tis why things arent being done quickly enough to remedy the problem? Ive read elsewhere and the link you provided and they all float between 75% and 90% in their surety of the cause.. Surely if they have no doubt as to the cause of the problem,they would leave no doubt as to the cause of the problem? 75% To 90% leaves doubts  Geoff: I personally am not entirely convinced that climatic change is entirely down to human intervention. While I think it is likely that human activity is contributing to changes in the Earth's climate, there are natural cycles which do the same. We do, however, need to move quickly away from fossil fuels anyway. Simply because the dependency on oil as a source of power is setting modern civilisation and the economy up for a fall. As soon as the oil runs out (which may be sooner than you think) then we'll be screwed. The effects of climate change itself will need to be addressed regardless of our change to more sustainable and less polluting energy. Whether we all switch to solar power today or not, the Earth is going through a change and we can't stop it. Outbackjack: If anyone doesnt believe that Climate change is real then they need to come out here and watch the desert spread into once fertile land. Outbackjack: Hey Pom. You live in Perth. You would have noticed that you had your driest winter on record there. Last summer was your hottest on record. Are you familiar with the forests of the South West. Even blind Freddy could see how Climate change has altered them over the past 10-20 years. Have you been out and seen the desert spreading? Its real. | Science Chat Room 1 Person Chatting Similar Conversations |
