Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Silver
Can we say though that we are experiencing a period of significant climate change? Yes and you'll have a very hard time finding actual climate scientists who say we're not. The evidence for it is completely overwhelming (temperature recordings, increased hurricane activty, shifting ocean currents, receeding glaciers and melting icecaps, most notably in antarctica, to name a few).
While the melting of Antarctica will indeed have an impact on ocean levels, it hasn't been proven whether or not the continent has major melting occurring. I believe there's some data that the exact opposite is happening, and that the ice cover in the region is increasing. Along those lines, if all the ice of the polar ice cap were to melt, it would not raise the ocean levels one bit. Why might you ask? Well, the ice up there is not an anchored land mass, it's just a giant hunk of floating ice. And exactly like an ice cube, it displaces the amount of water relative to it's size.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Silver
Firstly, cyclical climate change has to have a trigger. Saying change is 'cyclical' is all well and good (and not innaccurate) but it can give a misleading impression that it does this by itself without anything to 'get the ball rolling' as it were. This is simply not the case. As I explained in my last post the only factor that could probably account for the initial trigger is humanity, as there hasn't been any increased output from the sun nor any significant volcanic activity that could account for what we're seeing now.
Second point, what 'global cooling experts'? Who on earth is proposing this global cooling theory, outside of the non-scientific fringe? It certainly doesn't figure in scientific circles.
How can you say that the cyclical nature of the temperature of the earth is soley due/started to human interaction. As I recall, the last ice age was due to environmental factors (granted that factor was a large meteor hitting the planet but still...) All you have to do is look at tree rings. You'll see sections with thick white rings, thin white rings. thick black rings and thin black rings, that have actually proven the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. I personally do not think that humans have any impact on the temperature swings of the planet. Can we affect what the current temperature is yet, but I think that it's more environmental factors that affect the cycles (now I don't currently have anything to back that up, that's just my thoughts). Ok, global cooling is not "fringe science", and is actually a widely accepted theory, just as much so as global warming in many scientific circles. So please don't tell me that it's just a bunch of crackpots that have thought the idea up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Silver
Erm, what? So the vast majority of climate scientists are all in on this 'agenda' too? Even the ones who were sceptical of it when it first put forward and who were only subsequently convinced? (and there's a lot of them)
Even the scientists on 'the flip side of the coin' accept that it's happening, and are simply claiming that human action is not main factor. And they are a minority. If you look outside the scientific community then you are going to find agendas on both sides without any real difficulty.
Again, I reiterate that it's not the scientists that have agendas, that lies more with the politicians and the special interest groups than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Silver
But do you personally think that global warming is occuring? Because it sounds to me very much like you don't. If that is the case, I'm rather curious as to why.
I personally don't think you can say either way whether it is or not. Much of the evidence they've found out for either warming or cooling is anecdotal, and many models have been planned out and run through with many different factors involved. Again, it comes back to the cyclical nature of the Earth's temperature. There will be warmer periods, and colder periods. The thing I have issues with is that there are a select few, who publish stuff with the completely worst case scenarios. These are then the ones that get major worldwide press, and are broadcast on CNN, and many major news outlets all over the world. The fact the people are stupid now comes into play, as many see and/or read this information and take it as complete fact without a second thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Mr.Silver
Okay, that's some incredibly loaded language here. 'See things for what they really are'? That's a dangerous statement to use here, as it implies there's some obvious objective truth here that you are presumabley able to see but which the scientific community is somehow unable to.
As to 'why the leaders of the world can't' bear in mind that Lomborg respresents a small minority opinion amongst climate scientists (the overwhelming consensus amongst whom is that human pollution is a major factor, if not the principle one, in climate change). From a policy-maker's standpoint, particularly if they're concerned that this could have negative consequences, it makes sense to go with the consensus view, particularly as pretty much every scientific advisor you've relied upon for this will be holding it. Even for a non-policy maker it is a still a logical choice to go with the consensus (it's what I and I suspect several other people in this thread did).
There's also the risk-management issue. If Lomborg's hypothesis is wrong (and bear in mind the significant majority of climate scientists are saying it is) then if left unchecked this could have very major negative effects, possibly even catastrophic in a worst-case scenario. Even outside of one though, unless action is taken quickly any effects to the climate will be irreversible so if something is to be done about it it should be done swiftly.
Now, it Lomborg is right and the effects are too minor to cause worry then it is not a complete waste. Many of the measures put in place are designed to reduce energy consumption and pollution, both of which will also have enviromental benefits. Furthermore, it's not as if we're stopping cancer research or international aid to pursue this. There may be wastage but that itself it nowhere a collosal downside, particularly when taking into account most of the models of the effects of unchecked climate change (which, once again, have rather more academic weight behind them than Lomborg's hypothesis)
Ok, first, if you're going to bash the guy, at least read his stuff and see what you think, I can't stand people who are willing to put something down when the guy has clearly done his research on the subject, especially when he has facts to back up everything he says (out of the 260 pages of the book, only 160 or so is the actual book, the rest of it is all the material citations from his research and notes). One of the most telling things in the book is this. He asked a panel of top world economists to make a global priority list of pressing issues we have globally. He then did the same thing with a wide range of UN ambassadors, and the two lists were almost identical. They categorized the list items from very good opportunities to do much good to very poor. On both lists, climate was at the very bottom. Yet, the Chancellor of Germany, along with many other heads of state keep preaching that Kyoto is the best answer, when this is just not true. And you're telling me that the powers at be do know this stuff, and are listening to it? That's a bunch of hooey and you know it. Example: The data states that for every dollar spent on Kyoto, you get about 30 cents worth of good out of it. Even if it were to work perfectly, that plan would only delay the affects about 5 years (the world currently spends over a trillion dollars on Kyoto each year). Now, if we invest $27 into AIDS prevention, it will save over 28 million lives, or by investing $12 billion into curing malnutrition, it would cut the deaths due to such by over half. Lomborg's whole point is not leaving the climate issue unchecked, it is that by spending that money more wisely, we can help the world with it's problems, and climate at the very same time, much faster, and more economically that what is being done now. In the future, please don't dismiss someone who's actually gone out and done his homework on this issue. That REALLY REALLY ANNOYS ME. Now, you don't have to agree with everything he says, but don't just dismiss it offhand. I for one, don't like that he focuses so much on CO2 emissions, as there's more to the issue than that.