Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

102 posts
31 March 2014
SandyCamel
Photographer
SandyCamel

So, human's creating global warming is back in the news.

Apparently we are all to blame with our life-styles.

Also, apparently, 12,000 years ago there was a glacier 3 miles thick over Britain as far south as London.

On the other hand grapes were grown in England by the Romans 2,000 years ago because summers became warmer.

Dinosaurs enjoyed higher temparatures than now apparently - lucky things - there were no polar ice-caps apparently.

Apparently the sun's intensity varies - it is inconsistent.


So, global warming / cooling - fluctuation - is it our fault or is it a natural thing ???




Posted 31 March 2014
jpv
Photographer
jpv
It's neither false nor true!

The climate has always changed, the suns energy output is the underlying feature.

HOWEVER human activity has an effect and the debate is how much this is.

Irrespective of where the interpretation of the evidence leads one it is surely sensible to mitigate human influences as much as practically possible.

It is the practicalities that cause so much confusion, regarding the actual cost and the benefits entailed.

Until we have fusion energy and a means of cheaply re-engineering our atmosphere we should do whatever we can.

By we I mean the total population of the planet and getting government agreements on this is like organising a "herd of snails".

Posted 31 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
There isn't a debate is there. 95% of scientists say it is caused by humans.
Without the huge resources of the oil companies and the bizarre concept of balance on the BBC, no-one would doubt the evidence.

The only question is the fine detail of the models which show what has happened and will happen.

Posted 31 March 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
[qt][author]stolenfaces[/author]
There isn't a debate is there. 95% of scientists say it is caused by humans. Without the huge resources of the oil companies and the bizarre concept of balance on the BBC, no-one would doubt the evidence. The only question is the fine detail of the models which show what has happened and will happen.[/qt]

Assuming of course that the 95% are correct...................

The only question is not the one you suggest - how about "will it make any bleeding difference if we spend millions pissing about with expensive changes which have an infinitesimally small impact bearing in mind the growth of the third world economies"?



Posted 31 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
mph

stolenfaces
There isn't a debate is there. 95% of scientists say it is caused by humans. Without the huge resources of the oil companies and the bizarre concept of balance on the BBC, no-one would doubt the evidence. The only question is the fine detail of the models which show what has happened and will happen.
Assuming of course that the 95% are correct................... The only question is not the one you suggest - how about "will it make any bleeding difference if we spend millions pissing about with expensive changes which have an infinitesimally small impact bearing in mind the growth of the third world economies"?


I correctly predicted the pessimism and abdication in your answer without even reading it. The solution would be to appropriate the eyewatering profits made by financial advisors (for bascally doing feck all!) and use that to fund pollution abatement technology in the developing world.

Posted 31 March 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
jivago

stolenfaces
There isn't a debate is there. 95% of scientists say it is caused by humans. Without the huge resources of the oil companies and the bizarre concept of balance on the BBC, no-one would doubt the evidence. The only question is the fine detail of the models which show what has happened and will happen. Assuming of course that the 95% are correct................... The only question is not the one you suggest - how about "will it make any bleeding difference if we spend millions pissing about with expensive changes which have an infinitesimally small impact bearing in mind the growth of the third world economies"?

I correctly predicted the pessimism and abdication in your answer without even reading it. The solution would be to appropriate the eyewatering profits made by financial advisors (for bascally doing feck all!) and use that to fund pollution abatement technology in the developing world.



Financial advisers?  Why, how much do they make and what would be the appropriate level of remuneration?
Posted 31 March 2014
Edited by mph 31 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
mph
stolenfaces
There isn't a debate is there. 95% of scientists say it is caused by humans. Without the huge resources of the oil companies and the bizarre concept of balance on the BBC, no-one would doubt the evidence. The only question is the fine detail of the models which show what has happened and will happen.
Assuming of course that the 95% are correct................... The only question is not the one you suggest - how about "will it make any bleeding difference if we spend millions pissing about with expensive changes which have an infinitesimally small impact bearing in mind the growth of the third world economies"?
Did you read the Stern Report? or at least the synopsis. Interestingly the fine detail of the models is what determines what can be done.
Posted 31 March 2014
Edited by stolenfaces 31 March 2014
magpie1
Photographer
magpie1
This question has hints of the Pascals Wager principle. Perhaps the exact quantifiable extent of human intervention/activity in climate change is not possible to determine, however that human activity is having an effect is certain and we cannot go on indefinitely shrugging our shoulders and forever requiring 'further studies' before taking action to limit possible irreversible climate change.
There will be a tipping point beyond which amelioration is impossible, there does not appear to be any mechanism for global cooling.

Posted 31 March 2014
Edited by magpie1 31 March 2014
Darkstudent
Photographer
Darkstudent
just burn coal in your living room with no chimney and see if its good for your health, will give a general indication on what it does to the planet
Posted 31 March 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
stolenfaces

stolenfaces
There isn't a debate is there. 95% of scientists say it is caused by humans. Without the huge resources of the oil companies and the bizarre concept of balance on the BBC, no-one would doubt the evidence. The only question is the fine detail of the models which show what has happened and will happen. Assuming of course that the 95% are correct................... The only question is not the one you suggest - how about "will it make any bleeding difference if we spend millions pissing about with expensive changes which have an infinitesimally small impact bearing in mind the growth of the third world economies"? Did you read the Stern Report? or at least the synopsis. Interestingly the fine detail of the models is what determines what can be done.


Policy advice always mixes the normative and the positive. Policy analysis answers the question what if we do nothing or intervene in a particular way. But policy analysis is incomplete without addressing the so what and what to do questions. And there as well, the Stern Review adopted a position that is peculiar. This is best illustrated with the discount rate. The discount rate has been debated by scholars since Socrates (and perhaps before that). Some of the brightest people in history have investigated the discount rate.

The conclusion of all that effort is disagreement: Many positions are defensible, and any position is debatable. Honest policy analysts show results for a range of alternative discount rates. The Stern Review uses a single discount rate. It corresponds to an extreme position in the literature and it deviates from the official discount rate of HM Treasury. Nick Stern is, of course, free to use whatever discount rate he wants in his private life. Professor Sir Partha Dasgupta of Cambridge University has found that
Stern should save 97.5% of his income, were Stern to follow the advice in the Stern Review. Taking such an extreme position in public policy is odd.

The problems of the Stern Review could have been avoided if the report had been reviewed, pre-publication, by experts in the field. That was not done because of a fear that Stern’s peers would leak to the media; in fact, the media leaked the Stern Review to academics. It was reviewed post-publication, and no expert in the economics of climate change has stepped forward to defend the assumptions and methods of the Stern Review. Most of the critique came from outside the UK, with most British economists keeping a studious silence, a wise move given the amount of research money since showered on Nick Stern. The  more innovative parts of the Stern Review – the non-Newtonian calculus in Chapter 13, for instance – have yet to be
submitted to learned journals. Nick Stern has withdrawn from all academic debate.
None of this detracts from the fact that there is an economic case for greenhouse gas emission reduction. We cannot be certain that greenhouse gas emissions do not cause climate change. We  cannot be certain that climate change is harmless. In fact, most evidence points in the opposite direction.

Although economic analyses have yet to reach any robust conclusion for climate policy in the medium- to long-term, the recommendations for the short-term are widely shared among economists: We should start with emission reduction now, while simultaneously developing the institutions and technologies in case we would need deeper emission cuts later.
Overly ambitious emission reduction in the short run, as embraced by the European Union and the United Kingdom, is needlessly expensive. It is also divisive, particularly when based on flawed analysis like that in the Stern Review. It will take a century to solve the climate problem. Most economic studies conclude that it is best to start with modest emission reduction, and
accelerate the stringency of climate policy over time. For that, public policy will need to pull into the same direction over 20 or more electoral cycles. If the case for climate policy is exaggerated, the backlash will come, sooner or later. The Stern Review was a tactical masterstroke, but it will likely prove to be a strategic blunder. Its academic value is zero.

Professor Dr Richard S.J. Tol MEA


Professor Richard Tol
Richard Tol is a Professor at the Department of Economics, University of Sussex and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Institute for Environmental Studies and Department of Spatial Economics, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. He received a Ph.D. in economics (1997) from the Vrije Universiteit. He published 194 articles in learned journals, 3 books, 5 major reports and
37 book chapters, He specialises in the economics of energy, environment, and climate. He is an author (contributing, lead, principal and convening) of Working Groups I, II and III of the IPCC.
Posted 31 March 2014
Edited by mph 31 March 2014
jes
Model
jes
Darkstudent

just burn coal in your living room with no chimney and see if its good for your health, will give a general indication on what it does to the planet


Livestock farming is a huge contributor to environmental damage.

Posted 31 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
The state of the environment has always represented the 'Spectre at the feast of capitalism'
Posted 31 March 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
mph
Financial advisers?  Why, how much do they make and what would be the appropriate level of remuneration?
Hey Doc: instead of spouting your usual left wing bile, how about answering responses to your posts - for example that above?
Posted 31 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
mph

Hey Doc: instead of spouting your usual left wing bile, how about answering responses to your posts - for example that above?


Nowt! - Pay the socially useless Nowt!!!!!!! sad

Ps No left wiger - I am so sorry to defy your prejudices

Posted 31 March 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
jivago
Nowt! - Pay the socially useless Nowt!!!!!!!  Ps No left wiger - I am so sorry to defy your prejudices
Why are advisers socially useless? Do you not feel that ordinary people need any financial advice on protecting their families?
Posted 31 March 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join