Global Warming... a hoax?

[lunte]

We are all doomed - learn to live with it. We will all die one day and so will our planet...

[MikeMcc]

...Snipped by Mikemcc to save space...

Mike - it doesn't settle the CO2 argument either way but it wasn't a very good analogy - if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent - if they could do that, the argument would be over.

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

The analogy was only to show that Oil_Slicks comment was irrelevant. He attempted to ignore the relevance of CO2. I don't know where you get the idea of 'if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent'. It's another strawman. I could equally say that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is only 0.00017% so we don't need to be concerned about it. It's equally wrong since its 25 time more potent as a GHG over a 100 year period.

It's important to look at all of the GHG concentrations because the effects on climate will most likely effect all of the points that you have raised. Reliable crop productiondepends on predicatable seasons. You're also ignoring what I said earlier about my recommendations, I agree with you that the numbnuts in Copenhagen won't do anything useful. But there are sensible measures that will allow us to control emissions without costing fantastic amounts whilst maintaining our lifesytle.

How easy will it be for us to feed ourselves in the UK if we lose the fen-lands? How expensive are additional pumping and flood defenses?

[Mali]

Crikey, now you are even denying that denialaism is funded by oil companies - or their billionaire owners. Get real.

I can understand people being sceptics. I have no problem with that. But I don't understand why pointing who backs denilaism should drive you into such a fury.

Dont be such a mug Ashie, the oil companies are backing this too..

Climate Gate: Is “Big Oil� really behind the Global Warming deniers?

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspo...ly-behind.html

Climategate: CRU looks to “big oil� for support

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/0...l-for-support/

[MikeMcc]

Mike - it doesn't settle the CO2 argument either way but it wasn't a very good analogy - if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent - if they could do that, the argument would be over.

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

Cow farts and cow s***, far more of a 'Global Warming ' issue than tiny amounts of CO2.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6895907.ece

You obviously didn't read that one very well.

Methane is acknowledged as the second most important greenhouse gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide and is responsible for about a fifth of warming effects

[shape.when.wet]

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

I don't think anybody would dispute the importance of these things, but I would argue that they're potentially harder to solve than MMCC. They do not however have to be mutually exclusive.

CO2 (from whatever source) does have an affect on climate - the only quibble is over relating precise quantities to size and nature of impact. I can assure you that during flood basalt eruptions (such as those that made the Deccan Flats in India) that go on for thousands of years the climate changed considerably due to the CO2 emitted. That parts of the physics is not in doubt.

There isn't any rainforest left in Borneo and people all over the world are starving. You are so keen to stress the other threats of over population and economic development, but you're seemingly blind to how CC would exacerbate all of these things. If we cannot solve them now, do you expect us to do better when the problem is worse? In the end there isn't much that is detrimental to the planet that can't be at least partially blamed on human greed.

[parapauk]

Man Made Global Warming?


I'm reminded of this other infamous 'scientific discovery'…

Yes, and just like Climategate, the Piltdown man incident forever killed the idea that we evolved from ape-like creatures. Were we ever sucker for buying into that idea!

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

...Snipped by Mikemcc to save space...

Mike - it doesn't settle the CO2 argument either way but it wasn't a very good analogy - if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent - if they could do that, the argument would be over.

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

The analogy was only to show that Oil_Slicks comment was irrelevant. He attempted to ignore the relevance of CO2. I don't know where you get the idea of 'if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent'. It's another strawman. I could equally say that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is only 0.00017% so we don't need to be concerned about it. It's equally wrong since its 25 time more potent as a GHG over a 100 year period.

It's important to look at all of the GHG concentrations because the effects on climate will most likely effect all of the points that you have raised. Reliable crop productiondepends on predicatable seasons. You're also ignoring what I said earlier about my recommendations, I agree with you that the numbnuts in Copenhagen won't do anything useful. But there are sensible measures that will allow us to control emissions without costing fantastic amounts whilst maintaining our lifesytle.

Mike - I don't disagree that doing things in a cleaner and less wasteful way is generally a good idea but I am struggling to see why MMGW, which is still theoretical, should be given primacy, politically and economically, over other issues - population pressure with resulting resource pressure, loss of habitat and bio-diversity - which are having major impacts now. Certainly climate is a factor but these issues are best addressed directly rather than trying to manage them by limiting emissions.

[Mali]

Leaked emails from the Climatic Research Unit show how the world's weightiest climate data has been distorted, says Christopher Booker

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/c...the-world.html

[FORMER_FYRDMAN]

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

I don't think anybody would dispute the importance of these things, but I would argue that they're potentially harder to solve than MMCC. They do not however have to be mutually exclusive.

CO2 (from whatever source) does have an affect on climate - the only quibble is over relating precise quantities to size and nature of impact. I can assure you that during flood basalt eruptions (such as those that made the Deccan Flats in India) that go on for thousands of years the climate changed considerably due to the CO2 emitted. That parts of the physics is not in doubt.

There isn't any rainforest left in Borneo and people all over the world are starving. You are so keen to stress the other threats of over population and economic development, but you're seemingly blind to how CC would exacerbate all of these things. If we cannot solve them now, do you expect us to do better when the problem is worse? In the end there isn't much that is detrimental to the planet that can't be at least partially blamed on human greed.

I'm not blind as to how climate change might exacerbate other issues, my point is that they will bring us to catastrophe long before MMGW does.

I think you are exactly right when you say that they are too difficult to address, that certainly seems to be the political consensus. This is why I don't take MMGW advocates seriously. They're very happy to redistribute wealth, tell everyone what to do and prance about in Copenhagen, but they are silent when it comes to addressing key issues inherent to their own argument.

When I hear Greenpeace propose effective measures to prevent the world's population increasing by a third by the mid 2030's and when I see our leaders make development assistance dependent on achieving legally binding population caps, I will believe that they are serious. Until they do that, they haven't a hope in hell of reducing emissions to the extent they claim is necessary and they don't deserve support for tinkering round the edges and dodging the big stuff.

P.S. Unqualified support for a switch to nuclear power would be persuasive too.

[shape.when.wet]

I'm all for nuclear. :D

But telling the human race not to breed (esp when more bodies=more bodies to put to work in poor countries to feed more body's mouths) is like telling a bear to kindly refrain from shitting in the woods.