Global Warming - So What

[jpkeates]

You guys seem to accept what the crowd is saying, without looking deeper.
First, most scientists agree that global warming is due to human activity, but not ALL scientists agree. Why?

It's not "most", it's almost all.
And the fact that some scientists don't agree with the majority doesn't mean that there's room for debate.
There are people who believe in ghosts, that doesn't mean we have to consider that they might be right,

Another way to look at this: most people thought the earth was flat until Copernicus came along. So just because the majority thinks humans are causing global warming doesn't mean it's true. A single lone voice may be right and everyone else wrong. Again, I'm not saying that's the case.

Most people didn't think the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew it was round and even calculated its size.
Pretty much anyone who needed to think about what shape the world was came to the conclusion it was round, simply because there's no other way to explain a horizon.
It's also true that most people probably didn't think about it that much.

Copernicus was instrumental in showing that the earth probably revolved round the sun rather than vice versa (although that was also something some ancient Greeks asserted).
He knew the earth was round because he was taught that as a child.

It was generally accepted that the world was round, Copurnicus was a contemporary of Columbus who was attempting to sail part way round the world West to East to China when he bumped into the Americas, for example.
If he thought the world was flat, that would have been a daft thing to do.

[Macromia]

It's not "most", it's almost all.
And the fact that some scientists don't agree with the majority doesn't mean that there's room for debate.
There are people who believe in ghosts, that doesn't mean we have to consider that they might be right,

Exactly.
The majority of scientists who do disagree that human activity is the primary driver of current warming also tend not to specialise in the science that they are criticising, or have been found to be on the payroll of organisations that have a financial interest in the fossil fuel industry, or similar.
More importantly though, because neither of the above points mean that their claims can be discounted, scientists who do work in the relevant fields generally rebut the claims of the minority fairly easily by highlighting flaws in the methodology, misuse of data, a lack of supporting data, ignored evidence that directly contradicts the claims, etc.
If the minority were actually correct, and had genuinely discovered something that went against the consensus but had been overlooked, other scientists would be skeptical at first (science relies on properly applied skepticism) - but would come to accept the dissenting opinion when they couldn't find fault with the minorities claims, and when further research (which would have the intention of disproving the minority - because, again, that's how science works) couldn't disprove them.

Most people didn't think the world was flat, the ancient Greeks knew it was round and even calculated its size.
Pretty much anyone who needed to think about what shape the world was came to the conclusion it was round, simply because there's no other way to explain a horizon.
It's also true that most people probably didn't think about it that much.
...

Yes - and I said something similar in a reply to kelbol that is currently held for approval (a more detailed reply to nukecad is also held for approval).
Copernicus is one of a number of 'go to examples' that is regularly used by people who are trying to claim that it is the minority opinion that can turn out to be correct. Unfortunately, it is an example of when the people who were denying the scientific evidence were wrong.
The Earth being flat has never been a scientific position. It has always been a position with a lack of any supporting scientific evidence and which is directly contradicted by scientific observations.

[doobrey]

Bellamy vs Monbiot is worth a watch. Fine work by GM in this case.

[kelbol]

Copernicus is one of a number of 'go to examples' that is regularly used by people who are trying to claim that it is the minority opinion that can turn out to be correct.

That was indeed my point without getting bogged down in the finer details of the case at that time. The keyword here is CAN be correct.
I'm not sufficiently clued up to be able to tell which scientists can be discounted and who can be relied upon. All I know is that not all scientists agree.


Another example to support my point, MPs voting against the practice of dumping sewage in the sea and rivers:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mpaigners.html

So too much CO2 requires drastic action but dumping sewage in the sea is fine? These MPs are a disgrace.

[jpkeates]

All I know is that not all scientists agree.

But the chances of every scientist on the planet agreeing is about zero.
The overwhelming majority of science is in agreement on Climate Change, although there are different predictions that arise from the same agreed data.

So too much CO2 requires drastic action but dumping sewage in the sea is fine? These MPs are a disgrace.

Again, what happened isn't what the Daily Mail says.

There is currently a shortage of the chemicals needed to process human waste (caused by Brexit, but nevermind my cheap shot - there's a shortage).
So right now the companies that process sewage have a choice - they can store some of it, they can discharge it into the sea and rivers or they can stop processing it.
That's it, there don't seem to be other choices (and I can't think of any either).

If they stop processing sewage it backs up into people's homes, so that's a non-starter.
There's a limit to how much can be stored.
So it's hobson's choice, it's got to go somewhere.

But that wasn't what the bill they voted down was about - it said that the water companies had to make efforts (I think reasonable efforts) to minimise the effects of the release of sewage.
Which is pretty non-contentious I'd have thought.

It's not as if MPs were voting for putting **** into the sea.

[Section20z]

IF the UK faces coastal flooding - address coastal flooding in the UK - heat pumps and electric buses wont stop floodwaters but a bloody big wall will

Let's build a bloody big wall and get Bangladesh to pay for it.

Great idea but I forsee a couple of issues.
What will you do about the 7000 odd inhabited islands ? Will you build walls round the isles of Wight, Orkney, Lundy , Brae, Gibraltar ? I forsee a wall across the island of Ireland upsetting some dangerous people.

We also have numerous large rivers that empty into the sea. Will you block off the Thames, Tyne, Clyde & Severn & turn them into giant reservoirs for all the unprecedented rain ?

There will also be no more tidal energy which might rile the Scots who rely on it quite a lot.

The Welsh will probably not be happy to lose all their tourist beach income either.

Otherwise, I can't see an issue.

[Macromia]

...debate on whether the planet is CURRENTLY warming, or that human activity is the primary cause
...

That's where we disagree.

The PRIMARY cause of clinate change is the intetaction of the 3 cylcles of orbital variation as posted above.

Note the word that I have emphasised in the part of my earlier post that you quoted - it's very important.

Milankovitch cycles do have a very significant influence on the Earth's climate, and are linked to both warm periods and cool periods in the Earth's past (which is only to be expected, because they have a significant effect on how much irradiance is reaching the Earth from The Sun).
The problem is, that Milankovitch cycles are reasonably well understood and, although they affect the Earth's climate in the long term, they don't explain the recent rapid warming.

This, and other reasons why the evidence shows that human activity is driving current warming, are explained here:
Carbon Isotopes as Evidence for Anthropogenic Climate Change

And a quote from the conclusion of this paper - https://milutinmilankovic.rs/wp-cont...-APSTRAKTA.pdf :

Milankovitch cycles provide a strong framework for understanding long-term changes in Earth’s climate. They cannot account for the current period of rapid warming Earth has experienced since the pre-Industrial period (the period between 1850 and 1900), and particularly since the mid-20th Century. Milankovitch cycles operate on long time scales, ranging from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of years. However, Milankovitch cycles are one important factor that contributes to climate change, both past and present.

[Macromia]

The reply below, and the above reply to nukecad are copies of previously unapproved posts that have now been deleted...

You guys seem to accept what the crowd is saying, without looking deeper.

I can assure you that I have 'looked deeper'.

First, most scientists agree that global warming is due to human activity, but not ALL scientists agree. Why?

There are a variety of reasons, including, but not necessarily limited to the following:
1. Sometimes scientists are wrong.
2. Some scientists don't set aside pre-existing biases, or allow their conclusions to be bought.
3. Scientists sometimes misunderstand data.
4. Sometimes scientists appear to be expressing disagreement but they've either misunderstood the question or what they are saying is misunderstood - the standard practice of never expressing certainty, for example, is often taken by lay persons as representing doubt.

Scientists are human first and foremost. If a big climate change charity funds your climate change research and you're a young ambitious researcher, you're going to find proof of climate change (whatever that is) one way or the other and not kill off your career.
I'm not saying this is happening, but perhaps it's a possibility? We all have bills to pay at the end of the day.

This is an often repeated myth.
The reality is that falsifying data to support conclusions that the evidence doesn't point to is by far the fastest way to kill off any chance of a scientific career - and that being one of the scientists who overturns long established beliefs (whether or not those beliefs were scientific) is the fastest way to make a name for yourself. Discovery is what makes a name in science, not agreeing with the status quo.
Peer review is very important in science, and that doesn't just mean having papers looked at before publication, it also means your published work being reviewed and criticised after publication. If other scientists find they can't replicate your findings, even worse, they find that by repeating your studies they consistently find the opposite, that doesn't look good. It is always the supporting evidence that is important in science.
As for funding, any climate scientist who wants to get rich quick is probably far better off if they are willing to publish findings that support the oil industry and other big business - they are the ones who have most money to spare and they have more to gain from having papers published that support them carrying as normal.

Another way to look at this: most people thought the earth was flat until Copernicus came along. So just because the majority thinks humans are causing global warming doesn't mean it's true. A single lone voice may be right and everyone else wrong. Again, I'm not saying that's the case.

The idea that the world was flat was never a scientific one, it was a belief that was widely held by Europeans, despite a lack of evidence, due to the way that the Bible was interpreted. Evidence that the Earth was a sphere was actually recorded long before Copernicus, and the ancient Greeks had made pretty accurate calculations of it's circumference before Christianity ever existed.

Also, why is everyone (media, gov, etc) focusing on CO2? There are far worst things out there: air/water/noise pollution, deforestation, pesticides, extinction, have your pick. Why CO2 all the time? Plants love it. Apparently crop yield now is much higher than 100 years ago because of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere.... I don't hear anywhere that we'll plant more trees to absorb the CO2. I hear daft ideas instead.

Because the evidence strongly suggests that it is the CO2 that humans are putting into the atmosphere that is the main driver of current global warming. There are other greenhouse gases that have a more significant effect, including water vapour, but the science points towards them being a secondary influence currently (e.g. the atmosphere will only hold more water vapour as the climate warms due to CO2).
Noise pollution is an annoyance not a threat. Pesticides and pollution are frequently the subject of campaigns and government bills (even if they don't get much media coverage). Active conservation measures are taken to help prevent the extinction of species all over the globe, but pretty much all conservation organisations agree that the single greatest threat to biodiversity is anthropomorphic climate change.
Planting more trees as part of the action to combat climate change is frequently 'mentioned' - but it's not a solution in itself:
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/...-deforestation



The government, regardless of who is in power, typically will be more interested in staying in power than anything else, and this current lot certainly aren't interested in the environment regardless of what they say (their voting records very clearly demonstrate that).
However, what governments will do to stay in power is influenced by the public.

What about this dodgy carbon trading? How does that reduce CO2?

It doesn't, it's nothing but political manoeuvring that is used to hide failure to take action.



The rest of your post covers things that are up for debate.
What action should be taken, and how best to reduce warming, is the issue. Personally I agree that more use of nuclear power should be considered, and than electric cars and other supposedly 'green' technology is not currently anywhere near as green as it should be.

One thing that is very certain though, is that denying that there is any need to change because "the climate will change anyway" is an attitude that really needs to be changed (as does the current 'throwaway culture' that so many societies now accept).

[Macromia]

That was indeed my point without getting bogged down in the finer details of the case at that time. The keyword here is CAN be correct.

...and the key consideration is supporting evidence.

Copernicus had that for his position on heliocentricity (as jpkeates correctly pointed out) and the unscientific objections were because this went against what the church taught at the time.

I'm not sufficiently clued up to be able to tell which scientists can be discounted and who can be relied upon. All I know is that not all scientists agree.

Do you always give equal weight to the position taken by just a few percent of those supposedly qualified to express an opinion when it is contrary to that taken by over 95% of the rest when you "aren't sufficiently clued up to tell which can be discounted and who can be relied on"?

Another example to support my point, MPs voting against the practice of dumping sewage in the sea and rivers:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...mpaigners.html

So too much CO2 requires drastic action but dumping sewage in the sea is fine? These MPs are a disgrace.

I'm not really sure what your "point" is supposed to be.
It's starting to sound remarkably like you are implying that climate change is nothing more than a huge conspiracy to allow governments to raise taxes.

Yes, the recent vote by the majority of Conservative MPs to remove part of 'Amendment 45' that The Lords had added to the Environment Bill is disgusting, and very clearly demonstrates that they really aren't interested in the environment if it might affect peoples profits, even though, as jpkeates has said, the amendment would only have required water companies to "Take all reasonable steps" to reduce discharge of raw sewage, and require the Secrtary of State to produce a plan to reduce discharges in the future.

This current government in particular prefer to put business profits over environmental protection - but even they are proposing action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. What does that say?

[nukecad]

.. that denying that there is any need to change ...

I don't believe anyone here is denying that things need to change.

Some are questioning the current focus on certain changes almost to the exclusion of any other ideas or viewpoint.

Personally I also question the perception being given that if we can make these particular changes then everything will be alright and the planets climate will remain 'stable' in future.

[Macromia]

Bellamy vs Monbiot is worth a watch. Fine work by GM in this case.

David Bellamy is a perfect example of how someone who should have known better can have a long lasting effect on people's beliefs about science (although it's not just science that is affected this way).


Prior to the comments about glaciers which are the subject of this video (claims which he later retracted, by the way after it was demonstrated to be rubbish), there was an article written by him published by the Daily Mail.
Although this article was nothing more than opinion expressed by someone with no expertise in the subject, it still being posted on climate denial groups, 17 yers later, as if it is authoritative scientific research.

Bellamy did co-author a paper about climate change (with another AGW denier) that was published in 2007 (in a Civil Engineering journal!).
This paper did get cited by the authors of other papers - mainly as supporting the fact that carbon-dioxide from human activity is driving global warming, and as an example of the fact that there is disagreement of the effect that the human effect will have!

[kelbol]

1. Sometimes scientists are wrong.
2. Some scientists don't set aside pre-existing biases, or allow their conclusions to be bought.
3. Scientists sometimes misunderstand data.
4. Sometimes scientists appear to be expressing disagreement but they've either misunderstood the question or what they are saying is misunderstood - the standard practice of never expressing certainty, for example, is often taken by lay persons as representing doubt.

This list can equally apply to scientists who claim climate change is man-made.
My point about Copernicus is that just because the majority believes in something doesn't make that right, even if my eg was no good and led to its own discussion!
The laws of nature doesn't wait for the consensus of mankind.

But you'll find that there's 100% consensus among scientists that the earth is round, or they can't call themselves scientists.

[Macromia]

I don't believe anyone here is denying that things need to change.

Well, JKO commented here so I'd say that's at least one...

Personally I also question the perception being given that if we can make these particular changes then everything will be alright and the planets climate will remain 'stable' in future.

I wonder what you mean when you say 'stable' and how long into the future you are referring to.

That the climate has always fluctuated, and will continue to go through changes really isn't in doubt - and no one is suggesting anything different.

[Macromia]

This list can equally apply to scientists who claim climate change is man-made.
My point about Copernicus is that just because the majority believes in something doesn't make that right, even if my eg was no good and led to its own discussion!
The laws of nature doesn't wait for the consensus of mankind.

You are still missing the point.
All scientific positions are 'decided' by what the evidence supports. When a minority position is actually supported by evidence it gains acceptance (a relatively recent example is Mary Schweitzer's discovery that some soft tissues could be preserved, at least relatively well, for significantly longer than was previously thought possible).
With the number of scientists studying climate change, if the minority positions had any supporting evidence they would have gained far more acceptance during the last few decades.

But you'll find that there's 100% consensus among scientists that the earth is round, or they can't call themselves scientists.

Sadly, I doubt that even that is true - it's just that the idea of a flat Earth has so little acceptance, even among the general public, that we don't here about any scientists that disagree.
Young Earth Creationism is on the same sort of level, but there are quite a lot of scientists who openly reject both evolution and an old Earth because of their religious beliefs.

[landlord-man]

...... and I still go with the geoligical history that our planet gets hot n cold.