Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

Global warming caused by human beings - true or false ?

102 posts
31 March 2014
cziiki
Photographer
cziiki
This is a great thread for "where NOT to get your information on climate change science"

The place to actually read the information is http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ (index)

http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/IPCC_WG2AR5_SPM_Approved.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-26810559

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/03/31/climate-change-un_n_5061003.html



Posted 31 March 2014
skymouse
Photographer
skymouse
jivago

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.



So financial advisors, many of whom have invested years of time and energy into their occupation and building a business structure, should forfeit their enterprise (and summarily dismiss any workers) and should be coerced into working for  your proposed anti-pollution company?
Posted 31 March 2014
Edited by skymouse 31 March 2014
stolenfaces
Photographer
stolenfaces
I think he might mean these financial advisers
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/apr/01/royal-mail-undervaluing-taxpayer-cable

Posted 31 March 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
mph

Why are advisers socially useless? Do you not feel that ordinary people need any financial advice on protecting their families?


..So you would ply your "noble trade" pro bono then? - Or continue to flog financial 'products' (WTF!) on behalf of the City of London Corporations like the comission salesmen you actually always were?! What was that about taking nurses out of solid occupational pensions - Annuities rip-offs!...etc etc etc ad nauseam......


= Spivs in suits.

...Now  to keep the thread on track... I think I read the current Climate Change report is something of a Meta-analysis of some 12,000 other scientific studies - No ? Although Homo Sapiens (and I do exclude financial advisors and similar parasites from the species sad) have been around for some little time,  global warming is proceeding at a rate 10X faster than any time in the last 6.5 X 10years, therefore would it not be prudent to take a precautionary approach:- No ? sad 
.
 

Posted 31 March 2014
frankpht
Photographer
frankpht
Global warming is happening now of that there is little doubt. As to whether humans are the main cause. It would be not unreasonable to think our existence and our life styles would probably be having some impact a long with natures. Either way if we don't do ourselves in nature will come a long and do it for us. I give us less than 10.000 years if that on this planet. I'm sure the planet would be grateful if it only had to give us 1000 years.

Posted 31 March 2014
mikethefoto
Photographer
mikethefoto
mph

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.


So he doesn't have a real job then?

Just trying to lighten the mood, sorry.
Posted 1 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
skymouse
So financial advisors, many of whom have invested years of time and energy into their occupation and building a business structure, should forfeit their enterprise (and summarily dismiss any workers) and should be coerced into working for  your proposed anti-pollution company?
I am glad you have the energy to debate sensibly with an idiot. I give up.
Posted 1 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
mikethefoto
So he doesn't have a real job then? Just trying to lighten the mood, sorry.
Posted 1 April 2014
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
Too many people on this planet and no one seems to want to detail the consequences of this factor on climate change. That's obviously not PC!

Posted 1 April 2014
mph
Photographer
mph
anthonyh
Too many people on this planet and no one seems to want to detail the consequences of this factor on climate change. That's obviously not PC!
Worry not - they're all going to die! Thank God for global warming eh?
Posted 1 April 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
I have an Hons Degree in Geology/Geophysics so I suppose I have just a little knowledge of the subject of GW or as it's now referred to as Climate Change.

Clearly the UN IPCC is utterly discredited ....you just have to read about the tactics used by the University of East Anglia cohorts and the IPCC in the leaked emails to see what a falsehood Mann's Hockey Stick graphic representation really is and used by that self styled guru Al Gore to peddle his message... the man who couldn't even beat Gearge Bush to the Whitehouse! Utter bo**ox!

The governor general of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, often referred to as the world's leading authority on climate change doesn't even have ANY qualifications in the study of climatic change or any geological sciences... I think he has a degree in accountancy or something similar so don't take their word for anything....they're a bunch of crooks!

Scientific alarmism is big business and as an industry worldwide together with government green taxation, worth many, many billions of pounds so it's not just oil companies who are crooked!

Yes, the climate is changing but it has always done so - we're just emerging from the last major ice age and at an interglacial stage, therefore one would expect temperatures to rise as would sea levels....of course isostatic ajustments take care of most of that so it isn't all bad but you do get some adverse happenings such the North Sea being only just over 8000 years since it first started to isolate the UK from the rest of Europe.

CO2 is not the driving factor of rising temperatures... there have been times when it has been many, many times higher with no sugnificant overheating... I'm not saying mankind is not contributing to it but there is no evidence to suggest that it's the cause or driving force of rising temperatures.

I think if we want the answer, we should look outside of our planet and you'll find the answer there!

Just one small point ....yes for some, rising temperatures means serious problems but if the ice sheets return, which undoubtedly they will, that will be far more catastrphic for mankind than any global warming issues! 
If the ice sheets return to their last positions, many hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, there will be massive food shortages/ starvation and deaths and probably wars over the remaining lands so if I was asked which I'd prefer. I know which I'd choose between global warming and cooling.

Instead of throwing all this money at providing evidence of climate change and rising temperatures on alarmism, the money would be better spend on how we shall deal with it in the the future, which is something that shall have to be faced.
Posted 1 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
tonycsm

I have an Hons Degree in Geology/Geophysics so I suppose I have just a little knowledge of the subject of GW or as it's now referred to as Climate Change.

Clearly the UN IPCC is utterly discredited ....you just have to read about the tactics used by the University of East Anglia cohorts and the IPCC in the leaked emails to see what a falsehood Mann's Hockey Stick graphic representation really is and used by that self styled guru Al Gore to peddle his message... the man who couldn't even beat Gearge Bush to the Whitehouse! Utter bo**ox!

The governor general of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, often referred to as the world's leading authority on climate change doesn't even have ANY qualifications in the study of climatic change or any geological sciences... I think he has a degree in accountancy or something similar so don't take their word for anything....they're a bunch of crooks!

Scientific alarmism is big business and as an industry worldwide together with government green taxation, worth many, many billions of pounds so it's not just oil companies who are crooked!

Yes, the climate is changing but it has always done so - we're just emerging from the last major ice age and at an interglacial stage, therefore one would expect temperatures to rise as would sea levels....of course isostatic ajustments take care of most of that so it isn't all bad but you do get some adverse happenings such the North Sea being only just over 8000 years since it first started to isolate the UK from the rest of Europe.

CO2 is not the driving factor of rising temperatures... there have been times when it has been many, many times higher with no sugnificant overheating... I'm not saying mankind is not contributing to it but there is no evidence to suggest that it's the cause or driving force of rising temperatures.

I think if we want the answer, we should look outside of our planet and you'll find the answer there!

Just one small point ....yes for some, rising temperatures means serious problems but if the ice sheets return, which undoubtedly they will, that will be far more catastrphic for mankind than any global warming issues! 
If the ice sheets return to their last positions, many hundreds of millions of people will be displaced, there will be massive food shortages/ starvation and deaths and probably wars over the remaining lands so if I was asked which I'd prefer. I know which I'd choose between global warming and cooling.

Instead of throwing all this money at providing evidence of climate change and rising temperatures on alarmism, the money would be better spend on how we shall deal with it in the the future, which is something that shall have to be faced.


Well I have a honours degree in Ecology and a Professional Doctorate and I would not call the UN IPCC discredited - Unless you are dumb enough to believe 'Fracking PLC'

What is the evidence for the assertions that you make.? Please reassure us that this is not more status quo, right wing corporatism by citing your sources and your evidence sad

Posted 1 April 2014
tonycsm
Photographer
tonycsm
jivago

Well I have a honours degree in Ecology and a Professional Doctorate and I would not call the UN IPCC discredited - Unless you are dumb enough to believe 'Fracking PLC'

What is the evidence for the assertions that you make.? Please reassure us that this is not more status quo, right wing corporatism by citing your sources and your evidence sad



I'm not going to waste my time putting forward valid arguments until you answer the last replies I gave to your posts...no wonder the world is getting hotter, it's all coming from the hot air you produce!smiley



Posted 1 April 2014
Bogle
Model
Bogle
Oh, Dinosours died, Romans died, we should be already dead. There was prediction 2012, but still alive. For me its 50:50, its us and planets natural processes
Posted 1 April 2014
jivago
Photographer
jivago
tonycsm

I'm not going to waste my time putting forward valid arguments until you answer the last replies I gave to your posts...no wonder the world is getting hotter, it's all coming from the hot air you produce!smiley





I am sorry, there was a particularly malodorous exhumation I attended in preference to continuing to debate with you.  I will take your ad hominem attack as a lack of substance to your views.

May I ask you a question?frown

Posted 1 April 2014
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join