'Scepticism' over climate claims

[noggin]

Did you also catch Al Gore's ad for the upcoming concert? He said emphatically, we know what's changing the climate and we can cure it, it's simple.

No, Jethro, I haven't had that pleasure....I will look/listen out for it though.

As with other "bubbles", when things start getting silly that's when the bubble bursts. The dotcom boom for example....everyone started piling in....even those who knew nowt about investing (that is silly) and the bubble burst.

I read yesterday of a mobile home selling for half a million pounds...that is silly and it's looking, to me, as if the housing bubble is about to burst.

When "climatological expert" Al starts spouting (presumably something silly!) then it's time for this AGW nonsense to burst.

I've decided to just quietly wait for it to happen and I will be naughtily smug whilst watching the "experts" squirm!

PS I'm quite a softy really!

[Mr Sleet]

It's not scary, it's reassuring.

[noggin]

Yes Mr Sleet, it is, isn't it!

They won't grind us down....we can think for ourselves and don't have to jump on the current bandwagon. For that is what it is....a bandwagon. It will be replaced by something else.

When I was a girl ( :blink: ) we were all doomed to death by the Cold War.

So the Cold War (CW) has been replaced by GW....I wonder what W it will be next? Suggestions on a postcard please!

[Turnedoutniceagain]

Are we saved ?? Did Madonna get us out of the soup ??

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I do find it strange that the only explanation for the majority of people believing one side (to some extent) of the argument is the old "herd mentality" nonsense. Perhaps those people have just come to a different viewpoint than the minority. To fob this off as people following a bandwagon is, I'm afraid, pretty lame and suggests a certain arrogance on the part of some to think that they somehow are more enlightened.

The truth is I have owned a few palm trees (just as one eg) over the last twenty years and they have been fine through any of the colder winters that we had back in those days, sub zero an all. One of them is now ten foot tall. It is nothing new!

Surely the only thing that proves is that your palm is hardier than expected?

[John Cox]

Hi OON,

John here from the rainy and cold capital of Ireland..

"MISSING!!! –

ROUND YELLOW THING USUALLY FLOATS AROUND IN THE SKY!!!

ANSWERS TO THE NAME ''SUN''

IF U SEE HIM TELL HIM IT'S BLOODY JULY!!!

I think that understanding of the weather by the vast majority of people is almost nil. I know that sounds arrogant and I dont mean to be but all the Media have to keep saying is Global Warming, Global Warming and the world is going to overheat and most people believe it.

Maybe it will happen, maybe not. I am a self proclaimed sceptic on this one.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Perhaps people just look at the rise in temperatures and realise something's up?

[The Eagle]

Perhaps people just look at the rise in temperatures

lol!

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6263690.stm

"The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

Beautiful, the message is getting across then

BFTP

[Iceberg]

It is indeed Sceptics are successfully muddying the water...... fantastic. At least we live in a democracy and this will happen occasionally, long may it continue.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Iceberg

[HighPressure]

I would agree that many people who have come to their beliefs about global warming have indeed done so for their own good reasons - speaking personally I have never suggested otherwise. Equally, respect should be shown to those who need further clarification, understanding..or just perhaps need time to make their minds up. Many sceptics (or just half sceptics like me) however find the scorn and accusations of arrogance and being contrary just for the sake of it at least equally unfair & untrue.

It is perfectly reasonable though, to suggest that the power of media and popular opinion does indeed create a herd mentality. This happens naturally in our society with many issues - ie there exists a big risk that people can be over influenced or read too much into what they read or hear when a debate such as global warming is under so much intense exposure, saturation and scrutiny. Such an expression 'herd mentality' is often used to describe such a 'snowballing' effect and is not necessarily a derogatory term - and not as used by me in this context either. I would like to habe thought and trusted this would be, largely anyway, appreciated. Taking a step back with things can be healthy, it is not done necessarily as a sign of indecison, ignorance, contrariness, or simply to get up other people's noses and there is no truth whatsoever in there exisiting any feeling of arrogance or supremacy that somehow one is enlightened because they are being a 'black sheep' and somehow know something that others don't. This is absurd surely.

It could be deemed assumptive and very overly judgemental to suggest that 'wanting to be different' is the only reason for taking a sceptical line with this issue. I think people should be able to make their mind up over this issue, like most others, in their own time without pressure, excess criticism or aggression. And without incorrect assumptions and judgements. Lack of scientific knowledge to rubber stamp, prove or bolster an opinion, however advantageous this obviously is - does not necessarily devalue an opinion (or even struggling to have an opinion for reasons given) either. But that works both ways both for those who are pro...and against (to whatever degree on both sides)

Tamara

HI Tamara

I think that normally a herd mentally does follow the projected media line and my reason for posting the Poll was to find whether the herd is actually where we are told it is. Although I wanted a few more votes it certainly appears that the only a small minority accept the official stance on GW/AGW.

I lifted the following text from Wikipedia:

IS THIS WHERE WE ARE?

"Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist." Source: Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell, Propaganda And Persuasion, 4th edition, 2006.

Propaganda [from modern Latin: 'Propaganda Fide', literally “propagating the faith”] is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of large numbers of people. Instead of impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. The most effective propaganda is often completely truthful, but some propaganda presents facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience.

Has society moved on or can we expect a pre WW2 propaganda campaign until voices of decent dare not speak out?

Edited July 9, 2007 by HighPressure

[pottyprof]

Has society moved on or can we expect a pre WW2 propaganda campaign until voices of decent dare not speak out?

Good question HP. The answer does seem to be getting more frightening by the day.

[Iceberg]

BLAST FROM THE P...

BLAST FROM THE PAST

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Yesterday, 15:40 Post #48

Cumulonimbus

Group: Members

Posts: 2,525

Joined: 5-November 04

From: Redhill, Surrey

Member No.: 1,849

Oh dear Oh dear Oh dear

Up in the Air

BFTP

--------------------

BFTP - SACRA MEMBER 85

I won't give up the day job!!!!!

Iceberg

View Member Profile

Add as Friend

Send Message

Find Member's Topics

Find Member's Posts Yesterday, 16:46 Post #49

Cumulus

Group: Members

Posts: 564

Joined: 24-October 06

From: Dorset

Member No.: 6,326

"Moreover these changes are now simulated in climate models for the past 100 years to a reasonable degree, adding confidence to future projections. The summary is followed by a few personal remarks about the meaning of these findings."

Taken from a direct address to Congress

http://democrats.science.house.gov/Media/F...h_testimony.pdf

Wonder if he will be taking legal action.......

The above is taken from the sceptics link thread and rather nicely provides an example of what is unfortunately all to frequently happening.

A newspaper article misquotes or makes up a story, it's plasted all over the sceptic websites, the scientist in question then finds out and gets an appology from the paper, nobody see's the applogy. Due to this alot of people see dissent between the scientists when really very little exists.

That's why it's important to look at the science rather than spin, again unfortunately alot of people don't have time to do this.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Thanks for your reply Tamara,

I would agree that many people who have come to their beliefs about global warming have indeed done so for their own good reasons - speaking personally I have never suggested otherwise.

Has anyone actually said you have?

Equally, respect should be shown to those who need further clarification, understanding..or just perhaps need time to make their minds up. Many sceptics (or just half sceptics like me) however find the scorn and accusations of arrogance and being contrary just for the sake of it at least equally unfair & untrue.

As do those who have made up their minds for good reasons but get told they're just following the pack.

It is perfectly reasonable though, to suggest that the power of media and popular opinion does indeed create a herd mentality. This happens naturally in our society with many issues - ie there exists a big risk that people can be over influenced or read too much into what they read or hear when a debate such as global warming is under so much intense exposure, saturation and scrutiny. Such an expression 'herd mentality' is often used to describe such a 'snowballing' effect and is not necessarily a derogatory term - and not as used by me in this context either.

Well, it seems to easy to cause offence when none was meant doesn't it.

I would like to habe thought and trusted this would be, largely anyway, appreciated. Taking a step back with things can be healthy, it is not done necessarily as a sign of indecison, ignorance, contrariness, or simply to get up other people's noses and there is no truth whatsoever in there exisiting any feeling of arrogance or supremacy that somehow one is enlightened because they are being a 'black sheep' and somehow know something that others don't. This is absurd surely.

But you can't speak for everyone can you, only yourself, so I'll stick to my guns on that one as I was talking in general terms, and I would like to have thought and trusted that this would be, largely anyway, appreciated.

It could be deemed assumptive and very overly judgemental to suggest that 'wanting to be different' is the only reason for taking a sceptical line with this issue. I think people should be able to make their mind up over this issue, like most others, in their own time without pressure, excess criticism or aggression. And without incorrect assumptions and judgements.

So you're withdrawing your line about herd mentality are you? Thanks, I appreciate that.

Lack of scientific knowledge to rubber stamp, prove or bolster an opinion, however advantageous this obviously is - does not necessarily devalue an opinion (or even struggling to have an opinion for reasons given) either. But that works both ways both for those who are pro...and against (to whatever degree on both sides)

Absolutely.

[HighPressure]

This discussion has gone quiet but I want to raise the issue of climate control or reversal of the perceived effect of human emissions in light of recent comments such as this one by Mr Ban Secretary General of the UN:

"I have been advised by many experts that if we act now - since we have the resources and heightened awareness - we can reverse it,"

What should the avg global temps be without Human emissions, what exactly can we reverse the effect too?

Are we going to fit a great big thermostat on the wall then?

[eddie]

This discussion has gone quiet but I want to raise the issue of climate control or reversal of the perceived effect of human emissions in light of recent comments such as this one by Mr Ban Secretary General of the UN:

"I have been advised by many experts that if we act now - since we have the resources and heightened awareness - we can reverse it,"

What should the avg global temps be without Human emissions, what exactly can we reverse the effect too?

Are we going to fit a great big thermostat on the wall then?

These are things that I have always also wondered too.

For example, if humans had suddenly stopped releasing greenhouse gases in 1900 then what would the temperatures profile of the 20th Century look like? I assume somebody must have already run this scenario through a climate model?

What is the optimum temperature for the planet? If we had control over the global temperature then who would decide what it should be?

[Gray-Wolf]

What is the optimum temperature for the planet? If we had control over the global temperature then who would decide what it should be?

A little difficult to answer as we are in a dynamic system with the only constant (for the rest of the solar systems life) being a slow increase in the output of the sun until it finally boils off our rocky surface into space before devouring the planet completely.

As such 'how long is a piece of string?' , the climate/temp of our planet is driven by an off world influence but moderated/modified by planet bound processes.

[Bobby]

A little difficult to answer as we are in a dynamic system with the only constant (for the rest of the solar systems life) being a slow increase in the output of the sun until it finally boils off our rocky surface into space before devouring the planet completely.

As such 'how long is a piece of string?' , the climate/temp of our planet is driven by an off world influence but moderated/modified by planet bound processes.

Life can thrive in a huge variety of conditions. Even if the Earth warmed 10c, it'd still be thriving with all sorts of organisms. While places near the equator may become uninhabitable, places previously tough for life such as places at high latitudes will become full of life. With global warming, there will likely be more rain than average, and more heat. Warmth and moisture are 2 of the key ingredients for life.

It's not quite as simple as that of course, but any warming we do certainly won't harm the planet in the long run, just us.

Edited July 13, 2007 by Magpie

[The Eagle]

hmmmmm I wonder what happened to the 1989/90/91/92/93/94/95 predictions that my house should be under water by now........convieniently the hype surrounding those predictions has faded...........very convieniently

Edited July 13, 2007 by Darkman

[Devonian]

hmmmmm I wonder what happened to the 1989/90/91/92/93/94/95 predictions that my house should be under water by now........convieniently the hype surrounding those predictions has faded...........very convieniently

Red herring, spiced with obvious hot cynicism.

No one has predicted anything being flooded in the UK, yet, or for some time to come. Of course, you might be in the Maldives, but even there sea level change will take some times to cause much flooding.

Edited July 15, 2007 by Devonian

[eddie]

I should clarify my question really. What I should have asked is 'What is the optimum global tempererature for the human race?'. Temperatures obviously vary widely across the globe and seasons but there must be a global average temperature which gives the most ideal conditions in the most places. Are we at that temperature now or would a 1 or 2C drop be better (or even a 1C rise)?

The second part of my question I was hoping would be answered with a more political slant. What might be a good global average temperature for one part of the planet might not be good for another (for example a temperature which gave more droughts in affrica might give better crop yields in the europe for example). If we could control the temperature of the earth then how could we decide what it shoud be?