Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?

[Stratos Ferric]

Thanks SF!

I agree entirely with what you say - even with the "might only occur at a point where the climate is 3-4C warmer" part. Yes, establishing a new equilibrium might mean increased temperatures. It all depends of the effects of CO2 on the atmosphere, how effective the global CO2 sinks are, and (as far as our predictive models are concerned) how many, and exactly what forms of different sinks are there. Finally somebody gets what I've been saying! Thank you!

C-Bob

However, and let's be VERY CLEAR on this point, MY VIEW is that man-made CO2 emissions ARE increasing temperatures on the planet.

[Gray-Wolf]

I saw a Tertiary Dyke cutting a carbonioferous coal seam on Arran. The coal was 'coked' and was used as a natural source of coke by humans who then burnt it releasing the rest of the carbon. Of course only a pedant would rely on such small scale instances of naturally occuring 'spent' fossil fuels. The methane hydrites that are released from perma-frost may also be included as natural release 'fossil fuel' but why are the majority of these now being released???

[VillagePlank]

VP, it might, but the fact is that the huge bulk of locked carbon was laid down millions of years ago, and is locked in deep reservoirs. It would not, ordinarily, re-enter the "real-time" cycle suddenly or catastrophicaly.

Yes, SF, I agree, but it is misnomic to claim that the only way oil, gas, or coal gets burnt is if humans light it. I am almost completely certain that when one takes into account the proportional difference then it is clear that we do infinitely more burning than nature; but on an argument of this nature it is better to be right than to claim axioms where they just don't exist.

edit: and yes, this is a pedantic point, and, for all I know, an assumption like this could be skewing all sorts of conclusions if, say, the proportions were 10% natural, 90% man.

Edited January 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

However, and let's be VERY CLEAR on this point, MY VIEW is that man-made CO2 emissions ARE increasing temperatures on the planet.

Absolutely clear! We have opposed views on AGW, but we share some common ground.

BTW - I think VillagePlank wasn't suggesting that all the oil and coal could be catastrophically burned in the immediate future, but rather that something buried is not necessarily removed from the equation for all time. (EDIT - Sorry VillagePlank! Didn't mean to put words in your mouth - you replied before I did!)

C-Bob

Edited January 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[parmenides3]

Plank: you're putting words into my mouth. My point was that the fossil fuels which we extract from underground aren't a part of the natural cycle. I don't know whether or not shales are spontaneously combustible but, being within the reach of the atmosphere, is they are, then they are part of the cycle. Note; on the Wikipedia diagram linked to earlier that the cycle does not include the 70 million GtC contained in Kerogens, etc.

Fossil fuels become part of the system when they are burned.

Sorry if I was a bit patronising earlier.

Stratos: isn't that what I said?

Note: please read the Emanuel article, everyone!

:)P

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

As is usual in the debates on here about (A)GW, all the lucid points are being put forward by the 'For' camp, and the counter-arguments increasingly sound, to be honest, rather desperate. And this is from someone who doesn't really care one way or the other because as I see it in five million years, (which isn't very long from the perspective of the lifespan of the earth), this will all have been a minute irrelevance, (probably a bit like the human race will have been ???).

But here and now, what drives people to refuse to accept the obvious ? Is it a kind of 'King Canute' complex, or maybe more of a 'Nero' attitude to impending difficulties ?. Or perhaps it's the idea that if, by accepting the principle of AGW, one then has to accept some responsibility, and then consequently feel some obligation to change one's lifestyle in order to try and do something about it ? And when I say change, it would probably mean making some personal sacrifices. As I see/hear/read more and more of these debates it is becoming increasingly clear that one of the main underlying reasons for refusing to accept that mankind is in any way responsible is to thus avoid the blame, it's a bit like the kid in the playground who threw the stone then denied all knowledge and tried to blame it on a passing bird. In other words a deep-seated fear of taking responsibility, (Miss, miss, it wasn't me miss !)

[VillagePlank]

As is usual in the debates on here about (A)GW, all the lucid points are being put forward by the 'For' camp, and the counter-arguments increasingly sound, to be honest, rather desperate.

Are you convinced therefore beyond any doubt? Did you reach such a conclusion by studying the evidence, or by listening to someone who you trust?

[parmenides3]

Are you convinced therefore beyond any doubt? Did you reach such a conclusion by studying the evidence, or by listening to someone who you trust?

Many, many qualified experts who spend their lives studying this are convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence. Would they count as people who you trust? If their testimony is not sufficient to convince you, whose would be?

:)P

[VillagePlank]

Many, many qualified experts who spend their lives studying this are convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the evidence. Would they count as people who you trust? If their testimony is not sufficient to convince you, whose would be?

:)P

I'm just asking the question, P3, I haven't published my conclusions, here. Devil's advocate me: if I read an (in my opinion - which I must admit counts for very little) unfair statement, the little devil in me makes me advocate.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

Are you convinced therefore beyond any doubt? Did you reach such a conclusion by studying the evidence, or by listening to someone who you trust?

That mankind's activities of the past 200 years have been the major contributory factors to the GW we are now beginning to witness ? Absolutely, and this is the result mostly of reading/listening/watching then analysing/digesting/considering. I am old enough to know that in order to get anywhere near the truth one must consult many many different sources, (as many as possible but definitely not the media, or such patronising dumbed-down rubbish as the recent programme fronted by David Attenborough).

But the weight of evidence is becoming so overwhelming now that to argue against is prompting responses like my previous post.

[VillagePlank]

But the weight of evidence is becoming so overwhelming now that to argue against is prompting responses like my previous post.

How marvellously magnanimous of you! Well Done! And I really love the rather obvious and cliche suggestion of weight.

However, wouldn't it better to be rational, than emotional?

P3 is a very good example of someone who's belief in his conclusions are unshakeable, but almost always resorts to literature and peer reviewed study rather than spout illegitamate statements. Certainly someone I can learn from. Whether or not you accept his conclusions, I think it is certainly a great credit to him that he picks posts apart with patience and an air of scientific rigour.

Edited January 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Gray-Wolf]

As is usual in the debates on here about (A)GW, all the lucid points are being put forward by the 'For' camp, and the counter-arguments increasingly sound, to be honest, rather desperate. And this is from someone who doesn't really care one way or the other because as I see it in five million years, (which isn't very long from the perspective of the lifespan of the earth), this will all have been a minute irrelevance, (probably a bit like the human race will have been ???).

But here and now, what drives people to refuse to accept the obvious ? Is it a kind of 'King Canute' complex, or maybe more of a 'Nero' attitude to impending difficulties ?. Or perhaps it's the idea that if, by accepting the principle of AGW, one then has to accept some responsibility, and then consequently feel some obligation to change one's lifestyle in order to try and do something about it ? And when I say change, it would probably mean making some personal sacrifices. As I see/hear/read more and more of these debates it is becoming increasingly clear that one of the main underlying reasons for refusing to accept that mankind is in any way responsible is to thus avoid the blame, it's a bit like the kid in the playground who threw the stone then denied all knowledge and tried to blame it on a passing bird. In other words a deep-seated fear of taking responsibility, (Miss, miss, it wasn't me miss !)

I have put forward the opinion before that ,for some people, the scale of the events we are starting to witness are too disturbing for them (as personalities/individuals) to accept/internalize.

The first part of the Grieving process is an un rational denial of the facts and when I see some of the counter arguments posted against AGW this is just what I see. We shouldn't badger these poor folk as obviously it is (unconsciously) disturbing enough for them already. We of the more 'Asberger' persuasion can cope with the bad news and ,in a very 'car crash' mentality way ,need to see/know more........

EDIT: I agree wholeheartedly with V.P. on P3's impact on these 'debates' though, due to the rapidity of some areas of change/understanding sometimes appears a little behind the game as to get to the point of a peer reviewed article takes time........a rare commodity if we enter a period of rapid climatic shift.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[VillagePlank]

I have put forward the opinion before that ,for some people, the scale of the events we are starting to witness are too disturbing for them (as personalities/individuals) to accept/internalize.

The first part of the Grieving process is an un rational denial of the facts and when I see some of the counter arguments posted against AGW this is just what I see. We shouldn't badger these poor folk as obviously it is (unconsciously) disturbing enough for them already. We of the more 'Asberger' persuasion can cope with the bad news and ,in a very 'car crash' mentality way ,need to see/know more........

In my opinion, a very poor analogy indeed.

[Upgrade]

this is a good article.

http://dieoff.org/page119.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

In my opinion, a very poor analogy indeed.

Purely as a point of interest, why?

[Mondy]

Thanks for all the replies. A few rattled nerves perhaps? P3 excluded - you sound like a jolly decent chap to me and i shall print out the link you have pointed in my direcetion - if only to later burn (joke)! It's a shame we have to disagree.

Anyway, i simply disagree with most, perhaps selfishly, because i DO NOT believe in Global Warming. Now, don't all sit there open-mouthed. It's my choice to, just like it's peoples perogative to either preach to non-believers or indeed just go along with news/facts/statistics on 'GW'.

As has been said before, it really is pointless being one of the very few sceptics on here. I've continually, along with C-Bob, posted info to counterbalance some of the pro argument; even links have been posted, well-thought out replies which equal the pro replies. Yet, it's round in circles we go. I think, for my part, anyway, it'll have to be a case of 'agree to disagree' Life's too short. Hell a massive volcano could blow tomorrow!..

Finally, and it's not aimed at Jimmy, but if i can highlight his text:

I flew over the Amazon in the autumn , in the dark, on a plane back from Chile. The skies were clear, a little hazy, but all over these little semicircles of orange light from down below shone back at me, all over the place, for an hour or two as we flew. At first i thought how unusual the towns shapes were, then it dawned on me, these were forest fires, lit by people, burning out of control all over the jungle. the haze was from the burinng forests , all those particulates in the atmosphere. and it brought home the reality of what we're doing to the world and it is profoundly depressing.

It could be argued that the most staunch supporter of GW shoud in actual fact not even be on a plane..

[VillagePlank]

Purely as a point of interest, why?

Grief, generally, means coming to terms with something you've lost. As I understand the principles as they stand today we haven't actually lost anything yet, we're in process of losing it; as some, I would suggest, would like to attribute this winter's warmth, too.

I must offer my apologies; I thought I'd posted this - clearly not. I'm not normally that thick-skinned - sorry!

As has been said before, it really is pointless being one of the very few sceptics on here. I've continually, along with C-Bob, posted info to counterbalance some of the pro argument; even links have been posted, well-thought out replies which equal the pro replies.

I whole-heartedly disagree with you. At least, here, your posts will be read, and appropriate consideration will given by the very few who actually care about the science behind the issue - you guys already know who you are.

Please keep posting, and complain to the moderators if any post is lambasting you for any other reason than rational logic - which is what a debate should be about anyway.

Edited January 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Admiral_Bobski]

I have put forward the opinion before that ,for some people, the scale of the events we are starting to witness are too disturbing for them (as personalities/individuals) to accept/internalize.

I, for one, do not find the concept (or even the prospect) of GW anything like as worrying as the over-the-top measures suggested (and possibly soon-to-be-employed) to counteract our supposed part in it.

To Jimmyay - that's an absolutely horrifying article. There's a discussion about a form of indiscriminate Eugenics in there, and then the inevitable moral discussion which concludes that, morally speaking, it is wrong to do nothing.

You said earlier "what's the point of african people having 8 kids each when there's no food to feed them, for example?" Well what's the point of a bird laying six eggs, when only four of these will ever get to hatch, and only two of the emerged chicks will survive to adulthood? It's called "Survival" - if you have 8 kids then there's a much better chance that one or two of your offspring will reach maturity. This may sound a fairly inhuman argument, but that's the way it is (and certainly no more inhuman than the suggestion of imposed sterilisation on vast swathes of the population).

Anyway, rant over!

C-Bob

EDIT - BTW, I do agree with some of what Mondy says. While it is true that some of the pro-GW crowd (not intending to be disrespectful ) do listen to counter-arguments, there are others with whom I have found myself going around in circles, reiterating the same points time and time again in the vain hope that what I'm saying will sink in. (Again, no disrespect intended to anyone on here, but the argument about whether fossil fuels are part of the Carbon Cycle or not is a case in point here - I was not even questioning whether or not we should curb our emissions, merely correcting what I perceived to be a flaw in the wider argument. I chased my own tail for a while there!)

Edited January 26, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[VillagePlank]

To Jimmyay - that's an absolutely horrifying article. There's a discussion about a form of indiscriminate Eugenics in there, and then the inevitable moral discussion which concludes that, morally speaking, it is wrong to do nothing.

AS it happens, I've often thought of comparing AGW to eugenics but always thought the link a little tenuous - but there is a parallel - using good science to produce social, political, and economic changes. Eugenics reared it's head in American universtities, but, unfortunately, was seized upon a decade or so later by some very unsavoury characters.

Still, its a tenuous link, and I'm not sure I subscribe to it . . .

[Gray-Wolf]

Grief, generally, means coming to terms with something you've lost. As I understand the principles as they stand today we haven't actually lost anything yet, we're in process of losing it; as some, I would suggest, would like to attribute this winter's warmth, too.

I cannot argue your understanding of the word Grief but the 'grieving process' is a thing that can occur before time (as it were).

Many terminal patients will go through the same process as the bereaved on hearing their prognosis and it is more this type of 'dead man walking the green mile' response that I have focused upon.

I can find no rationality to their debate/denial when all around are ample observable facts supporting our (human) impact on our ecosystem other than one of a state of unconscious denial .

We all deal with our perception of reality in a different way and I couldn't say one way is better than another but find it a frustration when I sense someone is internally screaming "it can't be true ,it can't be true" as they post their rebuttal.

The give away is their perception that AGW proponents are 'doomsayers' as this shows their own internal understanding of that viewpoint and their inability to cope with the scenario. I fully intend (with my family) to survive the upheavals to come and to be there to witness the birth of a brave new post warming world. I intend to negotiate these times with both eyes open (rather than looking back or shut tight) as this will serve me best. Other peoples attempts to open the eyes of Joe public are probably attempting a kindness but like a child having a jab at the Dr's it is hard to persuade them that it is for their own good.

[VillagePlank]

GW, if you want to go along the terminally-ill paradigm, may I repsectfully suggest that you should say it starts with 'irrational hope' first.

Edited January 26, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Mondy]

With a spare 15 mins to kill before i go pick my car up from the garage (it wasn't polluting the air, just overheading *cough*), thought i'd put some sceptic links up for people not sure. You don't have to believe pro GWers, y'know!

Renowned Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming

Scare tactics

“I don’t like the word ‘Balance’’- Says ABC News Global Warming Reporter

“Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming”

Of course, i'm fully expecting a rebuttal from these links and the source is neither good nor true ( )

[Admiral_Bobski]

AS it happens, I've often thought of comparing AGW to eugenics but always thought the link a little tenuous - but there is a parallel - using good science to produce social, political, and economic changes. Eugenics reared it's head in American universtities, but, unfortunately, was seized upon a decade or so later by some very unsavoury characters.

Still, its a tenuous link, and I'm not sure I subscribe to it . . .

By Indiscriminate Eugenics I was referring to the very specific suggestion of imposed sterilisation of the world population in the article, rather than making some abstract parallel with AGW. Eugenics was widely frowned upon by most people, long before Hitler took the idea and started using it, so any suggestion of implementing it now is horrific.

Of course, Eugenics, in its original form, was intended to get rid of all the morons in the world (well, basically - the riff-raff, by which they meant the unintelligent who were, by their definition, of criminal intent) by sterilising people who didn't meet acceptable criteria, thereby preventing them from giving birth to further morons. The idea in the article is to curb the population by enforced random sterilisation, possibly by viral means - so the difference is that Pure Eugenics was intended to purify the populaion, whereas this Indiscriminate Eugenics is just intended to reduce the population.

I'm not sure which version is worse.

C-Bob

[Upgrade]

Thanks for all the replies. A few rattled nerves perhaps? P3 excluded - you sound like a jolly decent chap to me and i shall print out the link you have pointed in my direcetion - if only to later burn (joke)! It's a shame we have to disagree.

Anyway, i simply disagree with most, perhaps selfishly, because i DO NOT believe in Global Warming. Now, don't all sit there open-mouthed. It's my choice to, just like it's peoples perogative to either preach to non-believers or indeed just go along with news/facts/statistics on 'GW'.

As has been said before, it really is pointless being one of the very few sceptics on here. I've continually, along with C-Bob, posted info to counterbalance some of the pro argument; even links have been posted, well-thought out replies which equal the pro replies. Yet, it's round in circles we go. I think, for my part, anyway, it'll have to be a case of 'agree to disagree' Life's too short. Hell a massive volcano could blow tomorrow!..

Finally, and it's not aimed at Jimmy, but if i can highlight his text:

It could be argued that the most staunch supporter of GW shoud in actual fact not even be on a plane..

i know you're being devils advocate. but i wasn't absolving myself of any blame in any of the points i made or trying to be high and mighty or setting myself up to be perfect. that wasnt my point.

and i wasn't saying that we shouldn't fly , just stating what we are all doing and what i observed! when you see it first hand it makes you realise what's happening. i agree about flying its difficult , jet engines should be converted to run on biodiesel, this should happen in time with technological developments in that area. but at least i think this and suggest it should be done. if the world was left to you no doubt we'd still be flying in polluting vehicles forever.

seriously though, no serious scientist refutes that warming is due to human co 2 emissions, its a fact, it 's just the consequences of the warming we're arguing over now. i used to be a sceptic but having read a lot of scientific papers i am convinced this is real. its not a mass delusion.

[parmenides3]

Sorry, system crash, so I did the hoovering.

Plank: flattered, as by others, thanks. But; my belief isn't unshakeable at all. Show me why I'm wrong and I'll accept it. Perhaps 'belief' is the wrong word, as it implies a pre-rational decision. Maybe 'recognition' would be better, but that would be kind of implying...

Oh, and the air of scientific rigour is an air only; we are all on a level playing field, assuming we can all read and digest the content of the average scientific paper.

G-W: Behind the times? Moi? Shurely not? The Emanuel article is about three days old. Also, I only ever post links to articles or papers which I have already read. I'm not too upset, though...

Jimmyjay: all I can conclude is that either you are a nut, or this is a clever ploy to remind us that today is Holocaust Memorial Day, in which case you are forgiven. Involuntary chemical/biological sterilisation is probably not a morally acceptable response to population concerns. Anyway, as doing nothing about climate change is fairly likely to reduce the population quite effectively as it is, why not simply buy a HumVee?

Mondy, C-Bob, whilst I agree entirely that you have tried to be rational in your responses, I would argue that, so far, your counter-GW papers have not balanced the argument, or in your words 'equal the pro replies'. But this is only because of the flaws in the papers, not in you. This is why I (and others) try to respond to the examples you provide.

C-Bob: I agree with you that the some of the proposed responses to GW are over the top (and not even remotely useful). But this is not the same as saying that no response is acceptable. You have, rightly, pointed out before that a lot of the issues boil down to how much effect we have had/are having, and how much effect action to mitigate GW is going to have. In response to the first, there is plenty of good science which points to a climate sensitivity of around 3C (as a response, over time, to a doubling of atmospheric CO2). This should be supported in the AR4, next week. In response to the second, the answer is that not much that we do now will have an effect in our lifetimes, but it will have an effect in 100 years and beyond. The question then becomes, what, if anything, are we willing to pay for/sacrifice NOW for the unknown/unknowable THEN? I have no answer to this question.

Plank: The eugenics comparison has been used in the past by the 'anti-GW' lobby, but was shown to be both a false comparison as well as a slander by implication on the science. Probably best left well alone. If the argument against AGW (& not just 'how much?') is to be made, it must be done so scientifically, i.e. showing where the science is wrong, or why the reports/papers have the wrong answers. And this has to be about the science, not about the policies which are foisted on us in response to them (but not necessarily dependent on them - in fact, often in conradiction).

:)P