Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

noggin

A growing groundswell of opinion?

Recommended Posts

Hiya, Hiya! Here's just one reference to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.V41H..03R

It's an accepted fact about CO2, but it doesn't get much airtime (presumably because it implies that any temperature increase isn't going to carry on forever no matter how high emissions go...) :lol:

Hi Dev,

it's nice to see you back on and putting words in my mouth! No. That is so unbelievably not what I said. My previous post was a point-by-point introduction to what we know. I am not suggesting, nor have I ever suggested, that the apparent CO2 increases of the present are caused by temperature increases. At all. If you actually bother to read my post - the whole thing mind you - you might see that my conclusion at the bottom is based upon all of the preceding information - namely that temperatures force CO2 levels and vice versa!!!! Please don't try to make me look ridiculous, because it isn't working.

:lol:

CB

Ok, thanks for the clarification I agree with you.

Now, atm it's Co2 forcing temperature. Since, in the past, CO2 conc rises were clearly a feedback effect of a warming I see no reason why warming due to our Co2 emissions might not cause a further CO2 feedback increase (as it did in the past and you indeed point out). Why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, thanks for the clarification I agree with you.

Now, atm it's Co2 forcing temperature. Since, in the past, CO2 conc rises were clearly a feedback effect of a warming I see no reason why warming due to our Co2 emissions might not cause a further CO2 feedback increase (as it did in the past and you indeed point out). Why not?

You may be missing my point, which is that CO2 does force temperatures when in sufficient concentrations, but even then only up to a point due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship.

The historic record seems to show no feedback effect - no curvature on the temp and/or CO2 graphs, no step changes, no jumps, no jolts...nothing, in fact, that would suggest that CO2 ever had any effect on temperatures.

Now, while there is no denying that CO2 does fundamentally have warming properties, it's a bit of a leap to say that current concentrations are sufficiently high to start forcing temperatures up.

The bottom line to all this is that, although we are demonstrably pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the actual atmospheric concentrations really aren't significantly higher than they have been in the past (they're still in the same order of magnitude), so why the assumption that they are high enough to have an effect on temperatures?

:lol:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may be missing my point, which is that CO2 does force temperatures when in sufficient concentrations, but even then only up to a point due to the logarithmic nature of the relationship.

The historic record seems to show no feedback effect - no curvature on the temp and/or CO2 graphs, no step changes, no jumps, no jolts...nothing, in fact, that would suggest that CO2 ever had any effect on temperatures.

Now, while there is no denying that CO2 does fundamentally have warming properties, it's a bit of a leap to say that current concentrations are sufficiently high to start forcing temperatures up.

The bottom line to all this is that, although we are demonstrably pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the actual atmospheric concentrations really aren't significantly higher than they have been in the past (they're still in the same order of magnitude), so why the assumption that they are high enough to have an effect on temperatures?

:lol:

CB

Then I need to ask why the lockstep between temps and Co2 in the past? Coincidence?

I also suspect we need to delve into atmosphere physics, but, I'm no expert in that - as ever I bow to those that are and who say what's happening atm is in line with what ghg theory and atmosphere physics would tell us should be happening.

So, as per normal, I expect we'll have to agree to disagree :lol: and that we'll only come to a more firm conclusion as time passes and trends emerge or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I need to ask why the lockstep between temps and Co2 in the past? Coincidence?

I also suspect we need to delve into atmosphere physics, but, I'm no expert in that - as ever I bow to those that are and who say what's happening atm is in line with what ghg theory and atmosphere physics would tell us should be happening.

So, as per normal, I expect we'll have to agree to disagree :mellow: and that we'll only come to a more firm conclusion as time passes and trends emerge or not.

One would have to suppose that the lockstep between the two in the past was a result of simple cause and effect: temperature increase prompted the emission of more CO2 for a period of time (temperatures having increased because of some other factor), and when temperatures fell the absorption of CO2 increased, so CO2 levels fell. The historic record can be explained very simply in this way. Not only is there no need to invoke a positive feedback supposition to explain the past, but also the introduction of positive feedbacks overcomplicates the issue.

So, if we are agreed on the past then why do we have such difficulty agreeing on the present?

:doh:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To keep the post on the board and available.

Can anyone point to a time in our geological past that any species unlocked the gigatonnes of 'locked away' CO2 (some from 350 million years ago) that we have over the past 150yrs?

Can anyone explain why bleating on about "CO2 following temp rises" has to do with today's situation other than to post a warning about what our planet will now do having have us raised the global temps over the past 150 yrs (in line with CO2 responses in the past) ?

I can no longer figure whether folk are denialists or disguised 'catastrophist' with their tales of "CO2 alway lagged behind temp rise" Spiel.

We have raised our planets temp ,fact. We will continue to increase our CO2 outputs. Fact. The global CO2 sinks are knackered. Fact. Co2 increases after global temp rises (historical) Fact.

So , what is being said seems to be " nobody denies the planet is warming" and so why do they not add " and so we can expect a boatload more CO2/methane released any time soon"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To keep the post on the board and available.

Can anyone point to a time in our geological past that any species unlocked the gigatonnes of 'locked away' CO2 (some from 350 million years ago) that we have over the past 150yrs?

Can anyone explain why bleating on about "CO2 following temp rises" has to do with today's situation other than to post a warning about what our planet will now do having have us raised the global temps over the past 150 yrs (in line with CO2 responses in the past) ?

I can no longer figure whether folk are denialists or disguised 'catastrophist' with their tales of "CO2 alway lagged behind temp rise" Spiel.

We have raised our planets temp ,fact. We will continue to increase our CO2 outputs. Fact. The global CO2 sinks are knackered. Fact. Co2 increases after global temp rises (historical) Fact.

So , what is being said seems to be " nobody denies the planet is warming" and so why do they not add " and so we can expect a boatload more CO2/methane released any time soon"?

What I have been trying to get at is that, in the past, CO2 levels have risen quite dramatically but have left no evidence that they in turn affected temperatures. Although we know that CO2 is fundamentally likely to increase temperatures it is all a matter of degree - at what point is the concentration of atmospheric CO2 actually enough to force temperatures?

The fact that the current CO2 increases are attributable largely to man is neither here nor there - can they in fact be affecting global temperatures? They are not significantly higher than historical concentrations, at least insofar as they are in the same order of magnitude.

Yes, we probably will increase our CO2 output (up to a point). Are the global CO2 sinks actually knackered? Do we know that for sure? And you can't claim the "we have raised our planet's temperature" line as Fact at this point - that's what this debate is all about!

:mellow:

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far as carbon sinks are concerned the southern oceans (1/3 capacity of the globe) has not been working since the 80's and ,we are led to believe, Katrina has knackered the total U.S. forrestry sink ( with its destruction , and now decomposition, of the southern woodlands) .How many sinks would you like to see go before your " co2 following temp rise" adds it's input?

You may well enjoy the role of 'devils advocate' but you must be mindful of the younger minds trying to make sense of things here Bobski and we owe a 'responsibilty of age' to them and be as fair and accurate as we can with the information/reassurances we post.

Insofar as 'historical concentrations of CO2' we are told that 650 thousand years ago is somewhere near our mark and we had Hippos , Rhino's, Croc's and Lions in trafalgar square at that point (and of course our CO2 Concentrations are rising at least 3 times as fast as the IPCC predsictions gave us to believe if we believe the Australian measurements) and this is before our beautiful planet kicks in with her load (or will she defy your histories?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hiya, Hiya! Here's just one reference to the logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AGUFM.V41H..03R

It's an accepted fact about CO2, but it doesn't get much airtime (presumably because it implies that any temperature increase isn't going to carry on forever no matter how high emissions go...) :D

CB

I shall have a wee look at that tomorrow lunchtime. I can understand why that fact isn't banded about, also hence the reason I didn't know.

You may well enjoy the role of 'devils advocate' but you must be mindful of the younger minds trying to make sense of things here Bobski and we owe a 'responsibilty of age' to them and be as fair and accurate as we can with the information/reassurances we post.

touch of black pot there with your "millions will die" posts every second day. So lets keep it educational: no matter what "side" you debate for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may well enjoy the role of 'devils advocate' but you must be mindful of the younger minds trying to make sense of things here Bobski and we owe a 'responsibilty of age' to them and be as fair and accurate as we can with the information/reassurances we post.

Leaving aside your other comments for a moment...

Do you think I live my life chuckling wickedly to myself because I have successfully muddied the waters yet again? Has it not occurred to you that one of the main reasons I post on here is because I genuinely believe that the AGW hypothesis is flawed, and I therefore have a "responsibility" (self-imposed though it may be) to let the "younger minds" know of my misgivings?

I am certainly being as fair and accurate in my comments as I can possibly be - the fact that my view may be your "Devil's Advocate" is only indicative of the fact that my views oppose yours. That does not necessarily make them wrong, and it certainly isn't just opposition for the opposition's sake.

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071207/tpl...-04b64de_2.html

Here's the latest for the 'can't listen to the news any more' folk. Seems Like Piers Corbyn could just put out a blanket warning for th whole year!

Maybe stats from around our coast will help people bring things into closer focus. I'm sure Mr J. Public still thinks global warming just means nicer summers!!!

The warning that a further 2c rise could melt the poles should surely be cause for concern?

Nowt we can do to halt it but we could bite the bullet and plan for it surely?

Leaving aside your other comments for a moment...

Do you think I live my life chuckling wickedly to myself because I have successfully muddied the waters yet again? Has it not occurred to you that one of the main reasons I post on here is because I genuinely believe that the AGW hypothesis is flawed, and I therefore have a "responsibility" (self-imposed though it may be) to let the "younger minds" know of my misgivings?

I am certainly being as fair and accurate in my comments as I can possibly be - the fact that my view may be your "Devil's Advocate" is only indicative of the fact that my views oppose yours. That does not necessarily make them wrong, and it certainly isn't just opposition for the opposition's sake.

CB

Bob, would you not answer my concerns of 'more to come'. If we are doubting the drivers we surely cannot doubt who is responsible for the CO2 added to our atmosphere since the 1970's and then surely it is no great 'leap of faith' to tag those blessed 'warming before CO2 increases' documents into our current situation?

Maybe if you just ignored the CO2 we have introduced and looked at the warming alone it'd fit better into the historical models. It could be that the CO2 'trigger point' is also wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I have been trying to get at is that, in the past, CO2 levels have risen quite dramatically but have left no evidence that they in turn affected temperatures.

When? Like now? Clearly not since Co2 conc are higher than for 600, 000 years or so. So, at some time before that? But records that far back lack the resolution to be able to say CO2 rose at the crazy speed it is atm.

Although we know that CO2 is fundamentally likely to increase temperatures it is all a matter of degree - at what point is the concentration of atmospheric CO2 actually enough to force temperatures?

This is back to atmosphere physics.

The fact that the current CO2 increases are attributable largely to man is neither here nor there - can they in fact be affecting global temperatures? They are not significantly higher than historical concentrations, at least insofar as they are in the same order of magnitude.

Come off it CB :D Of course CO2 concs are way higher than historical, comparable, times.

Yes, we probably will increase our CO2 output (up to a point). Are the global CO2 sinks actually knackered? Do we know that for sure? And you can't claim the "we have raised our planet's temperature" line as Fact at this point - that's what this debate is all about!

:)

CB

Then, and I'm as guilty as anyone of not doing this, we need to read the output of scientists dong this kind of research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bob, would you not answer my concerns of 'more to come'. If we are doubting the drivers we surely cannot doubt who is responsible for the CO2 added to our atmosphere since the 1970's and then surely it is no great 'leap of faith' to tag those blessed 'warming before CO2 increases' documents into our current situation?

Maybe if you just ignored the CO2 we have introduced and looked at the warming alone it'd fit better into the historical models. It could be that the CO2 'trigger point' is also wrong?

As I have been trying to say, increasing temperatures will increase CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere (yes - in additon to that which we are producing!), but is the CO2 concentration even then enough to raise global temperatures?

Granted that CO2 concentrations seem to be higher than at any point over the last 450,000 years (I have previously posted links to papers suggesting that perhaps the ice core measurements are too low), but nonetheless historic concentrations were not, apparently, sufficient to have a positive feedback effect.

You will get no argument from me that mankind is pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, as I said previously:

The bottom line to all this is that, although we are demonstrably pumping CO2 into the atmosphere at an alarming rate, the actual atmospheric concentrations really aren't significantly higher than they have been in the past (they're still in the same order of magnitude), so why the assumption that they are high enough to have an effect on temperatures?

And so on to Devonian...

(Captain_Bobski @ 6 Dec 2007, 10:29 PM)

What I have been trying to get at is that, in the past, CO2 levels have risen quite dramatically but have left no evidence that they in turn affected temperatures.

When? Like now? Clearly not since Co2 conc are higher than for 600, 000 years or so. So, at some time before that? But records that far back lack the resolution to be able to say CO2 rose at the crazy speed it is atm.

I have quite clearly stated that CO2 levels now are higher than they have been for some time (with the proviso that the historic record may be giving a low result). The dramatic increases, comparable with current speed of increase, are a matter of historical fact - once again may I direct you towards the smaller peaks on the Vostok Ice Core graph. So at what point does CO2 have a positive feedback effect? Is it just coincidentally when CO2 reaches the concentrations that it has recently? Well that doesn't make sense because our recent warming is claimed to have begun around the time of the Industrial Revolution, when CO2 levels were still lower than they had been at various times in the past (see Vostok again).

Come off it CB Of course CO2 concs are way higher than historical, comparable, times.

I believe I did say that they were at least in the same order of magnitude as historic levels, which is to say that they are maybe 1.25-2.00 times as high rather than 10, 100, 1000 times higher. I think also that pretty much the whole of the Vostok series can be regarded as being "comparable", at least in geological terms (which is presumably what you meant?).

This, I am sure, will come back to the "a tiny amount can have a huge effect" response. My answer to that is but at what point does the tiny amount start to have an effect?

CB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Co2 cause/effect argument isn't a last port of call, it is one fundamental, oft re-visited, because no one has answered or solved the puzzle. This entire theory exists because the recent rise in global temps has coincided with increased Co2 emissions from man; now that's a HUGE assumption if ever I saw one.

It would be were in not for the fact that the physical property is proven, hence the greenhouse effect. Without CO2 the atmosphere would not be warm. Arguing that an increase in CO2 does not cause warming is like arguing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

...

The fact that the current CO2 increases are attributable largely to man is neither here nor there - can they in fact be affecting global temperatures? They are not significantly higher than historical concentrations, at least insofar as they are in the same order of magnitude.

...

CB

What is your point? Global temperature, whilst being at a measured peak, is also not higher by an order of magnitude.

What we have is CO2 at directly measured record levels; the global temperature at directly measured record levels; and absolute agreement (though I'm not sure Jethro agrees) that CO2 has greenhouse properties. Figure it out yourselves.

I forget whose axiom it was, but it often holds true: the obvious answer very often IS the answer.

....

So, as per normal, I expect we'll have to agree to disagree :rolleyes: and that we'll only come to a more firm conclusion as time passes and trends emerge or not.

Devonian, I am sure there are one or two on here who, even if we could roll the clock forward fifty years and global temps were, say, 2C higher than where they are now, would still be arguing that this is all natural.

At the end of the day, in my line of business, I advise clients do their best to take doubters along, but there comes a time when you just have to leave them, particularly if they are in a small minority. The effort wasted on converting the unconvertable is far better used encouraging those who are "with you" to do something positive.

The assumption is that Co2 leads temperature increases. Empirical evidence and historical records show this not to be true. There are time lags of indeterminate length, the estimates vary wildly but none of them are rapid. I'm not saying we haven't increased Co2 levels, nor am I saying it will have no effect, but theoretically (based on the IPCC accepted version) any effects felt by those increases, are quite a long way in the future. Currently, if temperature increases are linked to increased Co2 emissions then those emissions must have occured prior to the rapid industrialisation period. You also have to consider the nature of increased Co2; in simplistic terms the first, say for arguments sake, 100ppm have a far greater impact than the next 400ppm so the correlation graphs showing a steady increase in temps, in-line with increased emissions, don't make sense. It just doesn't work like that.

Jethro we keep going around and around on this one. The flaw in your logic is that there is ONLY one player in town. It is perfectly possible to envisage, in a geologically more turbulent world, of both more CO2 AND cooling, simply because of dimming effects of vulcanism. Perhaps solar radiation was at a lower level (so far as I'm aware it's possible to measure radioactive isotopes of gas in ice, but nobody has as yet found a way of confirming insolation in past millenia).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be were in not for the fact that the physical property is proven, hence the greenhouse effect. Without CO2 the atmosphere would not be warm. Arguing that an increase in CO2 does not cause warming is like arguing that 2+2 doesn't equal 4.

What is your point? Global temperature, whilst being at a measured peak, is also not higher by an order of magnitude.

What we have is CO2 at directly measured record levels; the global temperature at directly measured record levels; and absolute agreement (though I'm not sure Jethro agrees) that CO2 has greenhouse properties. Figure it out yourselves.

I forget whose axiom it was, but it often holds true: the obvious answer very often IS the answer.

Devonian, I am sure there are one or two on here who, even if we could roll the clock forward fifty years and global temps were, say, 2C higher than where they are now, would still be arguing that this is all natural.

At the end of the day, in my line of business, I advise clients do their best to take doubters along, but there comes a time when you just have to leave them, particularly if they are in a small minority. The effort wasted on converting the unconvertable is far better used encouraging those who are "with you" to do something positive.

Jethro we keep going around and around on this one. The flaw in your logic is that there is ONLY one player in town. It is perfectly possible to envisage, in a geologically more turbulent world, of both more CO2 AND cooling, simply because of dimming effects of vulcanism. Perhaps solar radiation was at a lower level (so far as I'm aware it's possible to measure radioactive isotopes of gas in ice, but nobody has as yet found a way of confirming insolation in past millenia).

Stratos we go round and round, not because of my flawed logic but because neither you nor the world's scientists can answer this question. As for me claiming, thinking, arguing there is only one player in town, mmm what happened to all those points I've raised with you, amongst others, on aerosols, atmospheric patterns&drivers, ocean currents, declining magnetic field, C14, solar output, clouds, cosmic rays, and many other topics I've raised, discussed, opened threads on? If anyone has a one trick pony argument then it is the pro AGW camp, including your good self who argue incessantly that the warming is due to Co2 emissions. I've no doubt that will be countered with "no one says it's all down to Co2" but for the life of me, if that were true, then why oh why is it so interminably difficult for any natural effects to be discussed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
but there comes a time when you just have to leave them, particularly if they are in a small minority. The effort wasted on converting the unconvertable is far better used encouraging those who are "with you" to do something positive.

But are people that question AGW in the minority? I'm not talking about deniers of warming, I'm talking about the ones who actually question what is happening.. Would they get left behind too? Sorry SF, I find that attitude a little hard to swallow. Education is the best way forward.. How do you educate the majority? How do you get people to believe in something that there is no proof of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stratos we go round and round, not because of my flawed logic but because neither you nor the world's scientists can answer this question. As for me claiming, thinking, arguing there is only one player in town, mmm what happened to all those points I've raised with you, amongst others, on aerosols, atmospheric patterns&drivers, ocean currents, declining magnetic field, C14, solar output, clouds, cosmic rays, and many other topics I've raised, discussed, opened threads on? If anyone has a one trick pony argument then it is the pro AGW camp, including your good self who argue incessantly that the warming is due to Co2 emissions. I've no doubt that will be countered with "no one says it's all down to Co2" but for the life of me, if that were true, then why oh why is it so interminably difficult for any natural effects to be discussed?

But it's a non question. You argue as if what happened in the past automatically predetermines what is happening today.

Your question is more than adequately answered here by the way.

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6231

You do keep trotting out hackneyed points of view re those of us who accept AGW. For the umpteenth time, I don't think there's one of us on here who believes it's ALL anthropogenic CO2, but it is, for sure, playing a major role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But are people that question AGW in the minority? I'm not talking about deniers of warming, I'm talking about the ones who actually question what is happening.. Would they get left behind too? Sorry SF, I find that attitude a little hard to swallow. Education is the best way forward.. How do you educate the majority? How do you get people to believe in something that there is no proof of?

And doesn't it sound a little like, we have no answers to your questions, so we'll just pretend there are none?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But are people that question AGW in the minority? I'm not talking about deniers of warming, I'm talking about the ones who actually question what is happening.. Would they get left behind too? Sorry SF, I find that attitude a little hard to swallow. Education is the best way forward.. How do you educate the majority? How do you get people to believe in something that there is no proof of?

PP, your question is hypothetical. Did the Government run a referendum before ratifying Kyoto? Has BP asked you whether you are willing to pay a slightly higher price at the pump to cross subsidise their investment in alternatives? When taxes are brough in for plastic bags, and myriad other causes of GW in comin years nobody will ask you your opinion, because there is already a critical mass of people, far better placed than you or I to judge what's going on, who are saying that there's a problem.

Education is the best way forward, but you miss the subtlety in my point. There is NEVER any point in chasing the tail, particulary once that tail has been given fair chance - and more - to take on board and process the situation.

There is at least one person on here with whom I have argued in the past that the climate is warming at all. When all the data says clearly that that is a fact then the only reason left for not accepting is either pig ignorance of rank stupidity. Either way, the sensible mind spots that in these situations there are better and more productive uses of energy.

If ALL the wise men in the world agreed with Jethro and co. I'd be concerned. The plain and simple fact is they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it's a non question. You argue as if what happened in the past automatically predetermines what is happening today.

Your question is more than adequately answered here by the way.

http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6231

You do keep trotting out hackneyed points of view re those of us who accept AGW. For the umpteenth time, I don't think there's one of us on here who believes it's ALL anthropogenic CO2, but it is, for sure, playing a major role.

But you are well aware that isn't my stance at all, your perennial mis-interpretation of my views on this are equally hackneyed. I am also somewhat puzzled as to why, when I've been away for 24 hours and the debate has moved on, Captain Bob has been discussing the Co2 issue in much greater detail than myself and more recently, yet you choose to pick me up on it in a far more challenging way. I'm flattered by the attention.

If you and others can accept that a pro view doesn't mean it's all antropogenic Co2, then why is it so hard to accept that a sceptic view isn't that it's all natural? Surely, the bottom line of both stances is fairly similar if we all think it's a bit of this, a bit of that? Why the antagonism?

PP, your question is hypothetical. Did the Government run a referendum before ratifying Kyoto? Has BP asked you whether you are willing to pay a slightly higher price at the pump to cross subsidise their investment in alternatives? When taxes are brough in for plastic bags, and myriad other causes of GW in comin years nobody will ask you your opinion, because there is already a critical mass of people, far better placed than you or I to judge what's going on, who are saying that there's a problem.

Education is the best way forward, but you miss the subtlety in my point. There is NEVER any point in chasing the tail, particulary once that tail has been given fair chance - and more - to take on board and process the situation.

There is at least one person on here with whom I have argued in the past that the climate is warming at all. When all the data says clearly that that is a fact then the only reason left for not accepting is either pig ignorance of rank stupidity. Either way, the sensible mind spots that in these situations there are better and more productive uses of energy.

If ALL the wise men in the world agreed with Jethro and co. I'd be concerned. The plain and simple fact is they don't.

Ok Stratos, or should that be oh doyen of wisdom and perfect thought? You're annoying me now, you are becoming personal and insulting. Once and for all, as you claim to be so damn sure of my thoughts, ideas, views on all of this, can you please post your interpretation of me so that we may all read it and I can see how wide of the mark you are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...If anyone has a one trick pony argument then it is the pro AGW camp, including your good self who argue incessantly that the warming is due to Co2 emissions. I've no doubt that will be countered with "no one says it's all down to Co2" but for the life of me, if that were true, then why oh why is it so interminably difficult for any natural effects to be discussed?

Jethro, by all means get annoyed at me if I am misrepresenting your point of view, but it beggars belief that you're getting annoyed at me when all I'm doing is reflecting back, and challenging, what you yourself wrote in the last half hour or so. It's not a matter of mind reading, just one of reading.

By the way, did the link answer the questions that you say nobody ever answers, or is even the massed capability of the Royal Society holding erroneous opinions.

At the end of the day if laymen on here, some of whom in the past have struggled to even accept that climate is warming at all, are going to hold forth against massed scientific opinion, then as I said at the head there's really no point arguing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PP, your question is hypothetical. Did the Government run a referendum before ratifying Kyoto? Has BP asked you whether you are willing to pay a slightly higher price at the pump to cross subsidise their investment in alternatives? When taxes are brough in for plastic bags, and myriad other causes of GW in comin years nobody will ask you your opinion, because there is already a critical mass of people, far better placed than you or I to judge what's going on, who are saying that there's a problem.

How big the mass? I'm not saying that there is nothing wrong as warming is obviously happening. I question the source of the warming like many others. I also question the political coupling with that mass and the need for main governments to replace existing tax systems as they mainly rely on oil sourced incomes. Is there a problem with having that view? Can anyone prove that this isn't the case? The answer is no.. Can I prove I'm right? Again, no..

Education is the best way forward, but you miss the subtlety in my point. There is NEVER any point in chasing the tail, particulary once that tail has been given fair chance - and more - to take on board and process the situation.

Isn't this then the start of a dictatorship? Your right to question and think eliminated? By asking questions and getting answers that are solid, is this not real education? People are not being given the full picture, is there any wonder why people question? Even on this forum there has been data presented that throws doubt on some of the AGW theory..

There is at least one person on here with whom I have argued in the past that the climate is warming at all. When all the data says clearly that that is a fact then the only reason left for not accepting is either pig ignorance of rank stupidity. Either way, the sensible mind spots that in these situations there are better and more productive uses of energy.

I agree.. Anyone who denies the world has warmed has to have a few problems but why are the middle ground painted with that same brush? I think that is way out of order and goes against trying to achieve anything.

TBH I think Magpie was closer to the mark with the list he produced and that AGW is just a smoke screen...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of the day if laymen on here, some of whom in the past have struggled to even accept that climate is warming at all, are going to hold forth against massed scientific opinion, then as I said at the head there's really no point arguing.

I'm starting to realise this now - the sceptics aren't going to change their opinions, so arguing is a waste of everybody's time. The evidence is already enormous - what more evidence could possibly emerge that would convince them? What new piece could emerge that the sceptics would look at and say "ah, now that's convinced me?". Not going to happnen. People take a belief, dig their heels in and won't budge.

TBH I think Magpie was closer to the mark with the list he produced and that AGW is just a smoke screen...

I do think it's used for taxes, busybodies, companies to make money, polticians to further their career etc, there's also some uncertainty over how bad it will be. But I find the evidence so overwhelming that I have to accept its reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm starting to realise this now - the sceptics aren't going to change their opinions, so arguing is a waste of everybody's time. The evidence is already enormous - what more evidence could possibly emerge that would convince them? What new piece could emerge that the sceptics would look at and say "ah, now that's convinced me?". Not going to happen. People take a belief, dig their heels in and won't budge.

I have to agree with you (again) Magpie. I've had problems myself even when agreeing with what has been posted. If their 'belief' seems, in the long run, to add to the global problems they fall moot on the subject.

A point in question is the current discussions about temp rise versus CO2. When you point out that they are merely saying that our current temp hikes must ,in their terms, lead to good old Planet Earth dumping it's own pooh-load of CO2 into the equation (which they concede has led to increased warming in the past) on top of the CO2 we are introducing from long stored carbon they say nowt!

how can that be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jethro, by all means get annoyed at me if I am misrepresenting your point of view, but it beggars belief that you're getting annoyed at me when all I'm doing is reflecting back, and challenging, what you yourself wrote in the last half hour or so. It's not a matter of mind reading, just one of reading.

By the way, did the link answer the questions that you say nobody ever answers, or is even the massed capability of the Royal Society holding erroneous opinions.

At the end of the day if laymen on here, some of whom in the past have struggled to even accept that climate is warming at all, are going to hold forth against massed scientific opinion, then as I said at the head there's really no point arguing.

But you are merely tarring everyone with the same brush, myself included. Loony, sceptic denialists when you know full well this is not the case. I'm wondering if the root cause of the repeated mis-representation is a ploy to annoy those of us who do have questions, to the point that we just give up and leave the pro side to have their merry way. It won't work you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out in previous posts, there is a rather distasteful element creeping into environmental forums elsewhere, whereby people who dare to question anything AGW are ridiculed.

There is currently an element of this occurring on this forum.

If people continue to assume what someone believes and quotes are forced out of the context in which they are written, then take it for granted that a 24hr suspension will follow without further notice. This will double for any further incidents..

Thank you..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...