Man Made Climate Change - Why It Has To Be True

#1
So we've all been told that if Mr and Mrs Smegma of 32 Acacia Avenue Purley light their patio heater, an iceberg will melt in Antarctica. This notion has really taken off in the last few years, and driving home last night I was wondering why this was. I came to the conclusion that so many people now benefit from this hypothesis that it has become absolutely necessary for it to be true. For example:

National and local govt - a brilliant way of raising tax revenue. In the last budget we had at least one tax hike prefaced with the phrase 'For environmental reasons.....' and there will be lots more where that came from.

The Conservatives - they needed re-branding from the 'nasty party', so Dave got on his bike and changed their logo to a tree.

Scientists - all the research grants you can eat as long as you link your work to climate change.

The BBC (well all media really but the BBC exploit it the most) - a stock news item to fill gaps between the real news.

Rent a Mob - now that 'sabbing' hunts is off the agenda, they can chuck coal off trains.

Universities - see Scientists. Also lots more pointless degree courses to peddle.

The middle classes - you've bought your house, you've had your 2.2 children, you've served your biological purpose, and now you're just waiting to die. But now you can save the planet! Go forth and buy that Prius!

The European Parliament - everyone hates and ignores them, but now they can say 'we can represent the whole of Europe to bash those nasty American polluters.'

The UN - more jobs for the boys. Of you go and set some environmental targets!

Business - companies selling renewable energy products are booming.

Christians - a new lease of life: they can now go around telling us not to harm 'God's creation'.

Hollywood stars - previously they had to look for charities to 'adopt' to try to persuade us that they were not self obsessed, materialistic and pointless. Now they can buy a Prius and adopt a polar bear.

Socialists - always good at jumping on bandwagons to disguise the fact that their ideology continues to demonstrate that it will never work, they can now use 'environmental issues' to 'bash the toffs' in their 4x4s and first class aircraft seats.

Car manufacturers - a great opportunity to punt more diesels. And by sticking a battery where the engine should be they can charge huge prices for a milk float to sell to gullible environmentalists. Put a tiny petrol engine next to it and you have a 'hybrid' which can then be sold to the gullible middle classes and Hollywood stars.

The environmental lobby - the power they have gained is almost immeasurable. In the same way that a career, business or political ambition can be ruined by the accusation of racism, an accusation of not caring for the environment, or polluting, will do the same.

The bottom line is that there are now so many people who have a vested interest in man destroying the world with his 4x4s and farting cows that it absolutely has to be true. Even if it isn't.
 
#2
So, you're completely discounting the possibility that they moved to these positions because it was true, not the other way round?
 
#3
My position is that it is not proven, but there are now too many vested interests to allow further vigorous scientific discussion. I think that anyone who takes an opposing position will just get shouted down or smeared.
 
#5
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
smartascarrots said:
So, you're completely discounting the possibility that they moved to these positions because it was true, not the other way round?
You're stupid.
Hang on. You're not my wife, by any chance? :)

I don't pretend to understand the minute details of the scientific argument of it, and I doubt anyone other than a scientist could. I have, however, had the opportunity to observe the scientific community up close for a few years now and coupled with my views on human nature this leads me to believe the pro case.

There is no way on God's green Earth that the kind of consensus amongst so many disparate scientific disciplines could have been maintained for so long without the evidence supporting the case. Given the sheer ego, bitching, infighting, rivalry and competition for funding that goes on, the whole edifice would have imploded. You only have to look at the whole 'cold fusion' thing to get an inkling of what happens when a false theorem is put forward. Rival research groups are queuing up to ca' the pins out from under the competition.

The tinfoil-millined fantasy that this is some big conspiracy to stop you enjoying your hard-earned 4x4 and patio heater is just ludicrous. Scientist are the biggest bunch of fishwives you'll find outside a pads estate. If there's a consensus, it's because the evidence points that way.
 
#6
smartascarrots said:
So, you're completely discounting the possibility that they moved to these positions because it was true, not the other way round?
Yup, I woud happily discount it being untrue.
Largely because climate change is natural, the planet has been doing it long before man and is just continuing to do so.
You can blame manmade emmisions (I agree they are dirty and smelly and should be reduced) of whatever if you like but they pale into insignificance compared to natural causes of climate change.
There is no hard evidence to support what is claimed to be science. When it was revealed a few weeks ago that the planet was actually cooling and is expected to do so for the next 15 years its claimed to be an natural anomaly but don't worry, stay on the bandwagon because we are really going to see global warming. Just not right now. Maybe.

Mans effects on the climate are far milder than is being claimed, the claims are just a cash cow and a worthy cause for whoever feels the need to have one.
 
#7
smartascarrots said:
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
smartascarrots said:
So, you're completely discounting the possibility that they moved to these positions because it was true, not the other way round?
You're stupid.
Hang on. You're not my wife, by any chance? :)

I don't pretend to understand the blah blah blah. If there's a consensus, it's because the evidence points that way.
Smartas,
We keep the earth cool. High altitude cirrus formed from jet engine exhaust moisture keeps earth cool.
Post 9/11 when all flight over continental US were grounded, it heated up by 3 degrees.
Look at Gaia theory, earth adapts to suit what goes on. there is little we can do that will affect these planet level systems.
 
#8
The-Lord-Flasheart said:
smartascarrots said:
So, you're completely discounting the possibility that they moved to these positions because it was true, not the other way round?
You're stupid.
Being called stupid by a chap with an "I fucked your mum" avatar is almost a compliment.
 
#9
Smartascarrots, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I'm saying that man made climate change has become 'received wisdom' despite the fact that the science is not yet mature, and there is some way to go before the hypothesis is proven. Meanwhile we are seeing yet more tax increases based on the premise that unless we give more money to the govt, the earth will die.

I would add that if the energy saving argument were presented as economic prudence, I'd have far less of a problem with it. In fact I'd agree with it. It's all the hysterical 'you're hurting the sky' bollocks that gets on my tits.
 
#10
Err...

smallbrownprivates said:
We keep the earth cool.
But

smallbrownprivates said:
there is little we can do that will affect these planet level systems.
Shome mishtake, shurely?

Have you made a lifetime study of the scientific disciplines involved? Yet when the people who have say one thing, you discount it because you believe differently? It's like a Greek tragedy.
 
#11
LISpace said:
Smartascarrots, I'm not suggesting a conspiracy. I'm saying that man made climate change has become 'received wisdom' despite the fact that the science is not yet mature, and there is some way to go before the hypothesis is proven. Meanwhile we are seeing yet more tax increases based on the premise that unless we give more money to the govt, the earth will die.

I would add that if the energy saving argument were presented as economic prudence, I'd have far less of a problem with it. In fact I'd agree with it. It's all the hysterical 'you're hurting the sky' bollocks that gets on my tits.
I'd certainly agree with you about the I'm-Gaia's-best-buddy Brigade. But just because a bunch of politicians have spotted the main chance and a troupe of annoying neo-hippies have something new to sing Cumbaiah about doesn't mean the science behind the theorem is somehow magically wrong.

How we're responding to the situation is pants. How does that affect what the situation is?
 
#12
A 20% increase in atmospheric CO2 in fifty years is not a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

"This is supported by measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in ancient air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores, which show that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 285 ppmv for several thousand years but started rising sharply at the beginning of the nineteenth century.[5] Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this has significant implications for global warming."
 
#13
Onetap said:
A 20% increase in atmospheric CO2 in fifty years is not a good thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeling_Curve

"This is supported by measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in ancient air bubbles trapped in polar ice cores, which show that mean atmospheric CO2 concentration was between 275 and 285 ppmv for several thousand years but started rising sharply at the beginning of the nineteenth century.[5] Since carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, this has significant implications for global warming."
The earth is generally accepted to be about 4.5 billion years old. It's therefore not possible to reach any meaninful conclusions from even a few thousands of years worth of data. Why, for example, would CO2 rise sharply at the beginning of the 19th century? Was the only industrial revolution occuring at the time (ours) polluting the entire planet? Or was it some entirely naturally occuring phenomena? This example of trying to reach conclusions with immature data perfectly illustrates my point.
 
#14
The trouble is with climate change science is that when the facts change then they fabricate the science to match.
Now that scientists have realised we are in for a period of global cooling (estimated to be the next 15 years) it is claimed that it is just an unforeseen natural variation, but we shouldn't worry they actually do know what they are talking about and global warming will be along shortly.
We are told not to demonise the likes of China over global issues but it is perfectly reasonable to demonise the car driver in Britain.
Its a cash cow, nothing more.
The science is vague, it is untested and it cannot explain the simple historical facts like the planet having ice ages in the past.
30 years ago we were told categorically we were facing a new ice age, now we are facing the opposite.
Not so many years ago a hole in the ozone later was discovered and we were doomed, now its closing back up (and science claims the credit with CFC reductions)
Every so often science comes up with wild claims of impending doom, gets paid massive amounts of money to prove the theory and then finds a new cause.
The only difference this time round is that government has a vested interest in flogging us all into the gutter with it simply because they can tax us massively under the guise of being green.
The cience tells us mans impact on global warming is dire because science and politicians are making a profit from it.
Reality is that the planets temperature and weather systems have always been and always will be prone to massive and rapid change. Look into history at any and every point and see for yourself.
Climate change is natural. Mankind is not responsible, taxing us to death will not change it and a new harbringer of doom will be along in 10 years or so when this one is proven to not be valid (and a new cause to tax us under the pretext of)
 
#15
smartascarrots said:
Err...

smallbrownprivates said:
We keep the earth cool.
But

smallbrownprivates said:
there is little we can do that will affect these planet level systems.
Shome mishtake, shurely?

Have you made a lifetime study of the scientific disciplines involved? Yet when the people who have say one thing, you discount it because you believe differently? It's like a Greek tragedy.
okay, i'll try again, the earth already can adapt to things that humans do, and indirectly these result in the earth balancing it self out, so yes we do make it cool, but only as a contributor to a bigger system.

any way, who cares, the indians and the chinese more than compensate for for any savings we and others make, and I've had tooo many depressing enviro nuts talking about population correction and mass die offs to have a happy long term view, except, here and now we are living our lives and should enjoy ourselves dynamite fishing whales, purse netting dolphin and hunting pandas in 4x4s.
 
#18
surely erring on the side of caution makes sense in this case?

Ok if everyone is wrong about climate change and human beings are not the cause, what is the worst that can happen? A hundred years down the line we have cars that can go a hundred miles on half a can of diet coke?

On the other hand if we say "Its not us" and just crack on the way we always have and then discover down the line that yeah, it really was us, it may be too late and then kevin costner will have his way.

Simple case of playing the odds.
 
#19
bubsnicket said:
surely erring on the side of caution makes sense in this case?

Ok if everyone is wrong about climate change and human beings are not the cause, what is the worst that can happen? A hundred years down the line we have cars that can go a hundred miles on half a can of diet coke?

On the other hand if we say "Its not us" and just crack on the way we always have and then discover down the line that yeah, it really was us, it may be too late and then kevin costner will have his way.

Simple case of playing the odds.
Could this not be applied to all the religions?
 
#20
jagman said:
The trouble is with climate change science is that when the facts change then they fabricate the science to match.
No, they don't. They revise or discard the theoretical model in light of newly discovered facts. It's how science works. If you want inflexible absolutes, the local priest/shaman/witch doctor can sell you a truckload.

jagman said:
Now that scientists have realised we are in for a period of global cooling
I see you have no problem believing scientists when it suits your prejudices.

jagman said:
We are told not to demonise the likes of China over global issues but it is perfectly reasonable to demonise the car driver in Britain.
China contains two-fifths of the entire globe's human population. It'd be rather odd if it didn't produce a substantial proportion of the world's pollution, regardless of how efficient or otherwise we were. But actually it's only recently and by a narrow margin become the single largest polluter ahead of the septics.

It's 'perfectly reasonable' to 'demonise' motorists in general because cars are horribly inefficient burners of hydrocarbons. The British government penalises British motorists? The rights and wrongs of that have nothing to do with whether or not climate change is our responsibility as a species.

jagman said:
The science is vague, it is untested and it cannot explain the simple historical facts like the planet having ice ages in the past.
Actually, science has been explaining ice ages for some time. LINK. I'd refer you to the section on 'Processes which make ice-ages more severe' for an explanation of how Global Warming could wind up making the planet cooler.

jagman said:
30 years ago we were told categorically we were facing a new ice age, now we are facing the opposite.
30 years ago there were fewer countries with industrial economies and far smaller amounts of fossil fuels being burned. We've changed the conditions, so the situation has changed and the assessment with it. What's so hard to understand?

jagman said:
Every so often science comes up with wild claims of impending doom, gets paid massive amounts of money to prove the theory and then finds a new cause.
Ahh, science does all this, does it? All on it's ownsome? It sheds hair on the sofa as well, I'll bet. Naughty science, bad science, no bonio for you tonight.

Yes, there are vested interest in the climate change camp. Are oil companies exactly impartial? What does any of that have to do with the pros and cons of the scientific debate

jagman said:
The only difference this time round is that government has a vested interest in flogging us all into the gutter with it simply because they can tax us massively under the guise of being green.
That's a given, but what does that have to do with science? If someone worked a con using your ideas as a cover, would your ideas be wrong because of that? Or would the two things be completely unrelated?

jagman said:
The cience tells us mans impact on global warming is dire because science and politicians are making a profit from it.
I'll be sure to tell my academic colleagues that, they always look like they could do with a laugh what with being poor as church mice and all.

jagman said:
Reality is that the planets temperature and weather systems have always been and always will be prone to massive and rapid change. Look into history at any and every point and see for yourself.
Climate change is natural. Mankind is not responsible, taxing us to death will not change it and a new harbringer of doom will be along in 10 years or so when this one is proven to not be valid (and a new cause to tax us under the pretext of)
The reality is that there is no evidence that the climate has ever changed as rapidly as it's now doing. Nobody has ever tried to claim that mankind created a changeable climate, not and got out with scientific credibility intact. The evidence is that we're massively increasing the tempo of a natural phenomenon with unpredictable results. It's a bit like turning up the heat under a pan of milk and then acting surprised that it didn't sit steaming gently like it used to.

Taxing us to death will have one guaranteed end result: people with less money to spend tend to be a bit less profligate in how they spend it; we've already seen people are driving less due to the high cost of fuel. I'll wager they're thinking a bit more about how necessary their journeys are first. Not saying it's right, just that it's a fact.

Cards on table: it sounds to me like you're in love with your car and just don't like feeling that you're being criticised for it. It's clear that you don't understand what science is as you keep referring to it as if it was some SMERSH-like organisation instead of a system of enquiry. Well, I'm not terribly chuffed about paying green taxes for sod-all either and I can't stick the swampy-tendancy in society and their ecological-er than thou attitude. But what's that got to do with the issue of scientific accuracy?
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top