Do You Believe Human Activity Causes Harmful Climate Change?

[Gerontion]

I agree that governments won't do what's required but this isn't entirely a failing of politicians. I think in this regard they're actually representing their constituents fairly well; nobody wants to do what's required.

Climate change isn't a problem which exists in isolation. It stems from the fact the human economy - in the sense of all productive human activity - is a subset of the world ecology, to which it's connected via sources (the raw inputs into the economy) and sinks (where we dump our waste). Climate change is a result of the human economy overwhelming the sinks and this has happened because we utterly ignore the fact that the economy exists within the boundaries of the world at all but any number of other problems could also arise to derail the economy. Water shortages are pressing in many parts of the world, and resource constraints - most obviously oil - are running into a wall. But taking account of these means cutting our cloth according to what the world gives us, not according to what we desire, and who wants to do that? Pretty much nobody I know.

Politicians are obviously well aware of the fact that promising hardship is not a big vote winner but at the same time they need to do something so I think the most likely outcome is a deal at Copenhagen which is superficially appealing. America promises to cut emissions by 20% by 2020 but the small print says this is only on 2005 levels so it's really a 3% cut; China promises to reduce growth in carbon emissions and reduce the carbon intensity of its economy but growth in its economy overwhelms this and its emissions actually grow; the EU promises bigger cuts but this is nearly all offsetting in the global South and the accounting for this is so obscure that nobody really knows what's going on. And what happens in 2020 when, instead of emissions peaking and going into decline, we discover that - hang on a sec - they're still going up? Someone - or more likely everyone - is cheating. I can't see a way out of this. It needs a revolution in our conceptions of the world which is on a par with the shift from the mediaeval to the modern but instead of running over hundreds of years, we've got a decade or two. It's not going to happen.

[Jingthing]

The feeling that if we get 4 C degrees warmer, we are heading for HUMAN EXTINCTION is part of the MAINSTREAM SCIENCE global warming theory

In that case, the Warmists are more wacko and religiously deluded than even I thought.

Again the cancer analogy.

A guy goes to ten doctors and 9 and out 10 tell him he has life threatening cancer. One says he doesn't. He follows the consul of the one with pleasant news. So, who is wacko here?

Edited December 16, 2009 by Jingthing

[Gerontion]

the Warmists are more wacko and religiously deluded than even I thought.

Why even pretend? Someone gives you a link with a government advisor, clearly someone who's qualified to talk on this, saying that 4 degrees is possible. The fact that their predictions conflict with your beliefs - which as far as I can tell are grounded on nothing more than personal prejudice - doesn't make them "wacko and religiously deluded". Your stance against ACC is, however, pretty close to being exactly that. Posting youtube videos of an insane Lord and rubbish about Al Gore is hardly impressive, is it? And "wacko and religiously deluded" is as good a description as any to describe that kind of behaviour.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Gerontion

[Gerontion]

Whether our governments respond properly or not is a totally separate issue than about the truth of the theory.

Indeed so.

[RickBradford]

Neither of you read my post.

The feeling that if we get 4 C degrees warmer, we are heading for HUMAN EXTINCTION is part of the MAINSTREAM SCIENCE global warming theory

I was expressing extreme surprise at this statement being presented as fact, as I have not read or seen it anywhere else.

Let me clarify: Is it true, as the poster maintains, that "mainstream science global warming theory" holds that we are "heading for human extinction" if there is 4C of warming?

If so, can someone quote me a reliable source of this information -- IPCC or Copenhagen Diagnosis, perhaps?

Edited December 16, 2009 by RickBradford

[Gerontion]

The scientist quoted in the Guardian article is Bob Watson, the ex-Chair of the IPCC.

[RickBradford]

I guess it must be this story..

Climate change sceptics and lobbyists put world at risk, says top adviser

• Chance to limit warming squandered, says scientist

• World needs to prepare to cope with at least 3-4C rise

I can't see anything in there about "heading for human extinction", though.

The link I'd like is one to a "MAINSTREAM SCIENCE global warming theory" adherent saying we are "heading for human extinction" if there is a 4C temperature rise.

Thanks.

[bonobo]

It's a very good point and, as you say, something which everyone ducks. I remember reading on The Oil Drum someone pointing out that if you point out to most environmentalists "I've just heard the remainder of the Larsen Ice Shelf is disintegrating" they will unanimously be unhappy; if you say "the recession's over and the economy's growing", they'll - probably - unanimously be happy. This doesn't make any sense because - as sure as eggs is eggs - a growing economy is bad news for the Larsen Ice Shelf. There's a lot of talk about the green economy, green collar jobs, green growth but that all strikes me as <deleted>. How can, for example, we expect the British economy to be in 40 years time using 10% of the fossil fuel it currently uses and this not to have consequences for the economy? A healthy economy needs to grow at something like 2 or 3% per annum. That means doubling in size every 25 to 35 years. And doubling the size of the economy means, if not doubling, at least increasing dramatically inputs, including energy...but the world is a finite place. You can't grow indefinitely in a finite environment. That's obvious. A hundred years ago, economic growth had only a relatively slight impact on the global environment and it was possible - it probably even made sense - to ignore it. That's no longer the case. We need to convert very rapidly to a steady state economy and that poses very serious, in fact almost certainly fatal, consequences for capitalism. Your second point about poverty is also valid. Wealth inequalities and poverty survive because of economic growth. Without economic growth you have a hel_l of a problem and the only solution is wealth redistribution, both within and between nations. It means - for the West and elites in the global South - getting a lot poorer. Well, tough shit.

Of course, I don't expect this to happen; countries go to war for an awful lot less (as this decade has shown, as if it needed any more evidence). I can't imagine that in a choice between giving up wealth now and bequeathing a damaged world to our children later, anyone other than a small majority is going to select the former.

I don't agree with your bleak assessment that going green has to be a death knell for the economy.  If we simply shutter businesses in order to reach stated emissions goals, then yes, it would be deleterious to the economy.  BUt we, as a race, are resilient, and we need to come up with better ways of doing business.

Air travel is a very high per capita producer of greenhouse gases, but the new Dreamliner will make a significant cut in that.  And with over 800 planes now on order, Boeing's future financial health looks good.  Toyota is selling more and more hybrid cars, each one a tiny boost to the economy.  With growing companies making wind-power equipment and infrastructure, not only are jobs created, but oil dependency is lessened.  

With wind, geothermal, tidal, nuclear, and hydro, if we can diminish the burning of fossil fuels as a means of creating electricity, then we can lower the emissions without lowering the amount of electricity necessary to power the world.  And that means more oil can be used to keep agriculture going to feed the ever-increasing mouths the world will have. 

[Orac]

Whether our governments respond properly or not is a totally separate issue than about the truth of the theory.

Indeed so.

Although they are technically seperate issues what would you say is the more important one - what we do about it or if it is true or not. Surely if you are taking the position that it is an incontrovertable truth then the actions we take should be far more important. To just argue the existance of AGW seems like a pointless exercise if we are not looking at the options we have for dealing with it unless the aim is to be able to say 'I told you so' in a few years.

[Gerontion]

James Hansen on the runaway greenhouse effect:

Now the danger that we face is the Venus syndrome. There is no escape from the Venus Syndrome. Venus will never have oceans again. Given the solar constant that we have today, how large a forcing must be maintained to cause runaway global warming? Our model blows up before the oceans boil, but it suggests that perhaps runaway conditions could occur with added forcing as small as 10-20 W/m2. There may have been times in the Earth’s history when CO2 was as high as 4000 ppm without causing a runaway greenhouse effect. But the solar irradiance was less at that time. What is different about the human-made forcing is the rapidity at which we are increasing it, on the time scale of a century or a few centuries. It does not provide enough time for negative feedbacks, such as changes in the weathering rate, to be a major factor. There is also a danger that humans could cause the release of methane hydrates, perhaps more rapidly than in some of the cases in the geologic record. In my opinion, if we burn all the coal, there is a good chance that we will initiate the runaway greenhouse effect. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale (a.k.a. oil shale), I think it is a dead certainty.That would be the ultimate Faustian bargain. Mephistopheles would carry off shrieking not only the robber barons, but, unfortunately and permanently, all life on the planet.

There's a very good book called Six Degrees which goes into some detail about what happens with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 degrees of warming. It's well written and extensively foot noted. Of course the author, Mark Lynas, is obvioulsy part of the great global warming conspiracy (funny hand shakes and rolled up trouser legs) so whether you believe him or not is up to you.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Gerontion

[jombom]

4 Climate scientists have voted No, and 0 have voted Yes ------ kinda points to something.

That Thaivisa members lie about their qualifications, perhaps?

More like probably. Statistically, the vast majority of climate scientists would vote yes, so finding the result here FISHY is perfectly reasonable.

In the interests of peace and harmony, it seemed easier to let this go.

However, on reflection, I am bothered by some inconsistencies as follows;

1) The query of lies about qualifications, does not stand, as both Yes and No options were given.

2) Why would somebody tell a lie on an anonymous forum --- does not make sense.

3) The bona fides of the poll questions as posed by Jingting, seem to be fair. It is therefore reasonable to accept the results as being honest. BTW the score is now 5-0.

There are serious dangers attached to hypotesis testing, and these need to be understood. Refusing to change a preconceived idea, because the test data does not fit, is a form of denial.

JT, please reconsider. Check the Rabbi of Krakow Theory, if you wish.

To conclude, and be fair to JT, I should say that I have always been greatly impressed by your honesty, and the help you have given many posters, including myself. Thank you!

[Gerontion]

Surely if you are taking the position that it is an incontrovertable truth then the actions we take should be far more important. To just argue the existance of AGW seems like a pointless exercise if we are not looking at the options we have for dealing with it unless the aim is to be able to say 'I told you so' in a few years.

I wouldn't say it's an incontrovertible truth because all theories are subject to revision but, yes, I obviously think we should try to fight. I sincerely hope that a worthwhile deal is made in Copenhagen, that emissions peak within the next 5 years and thereafter decline at a rapid rate. It's certainly possible and I do what I can in my personal life but I think that of the potential outcomes, this has to be one of the least likely. The fact that this thread exists is testament to the improbability of success.

Toyota is selling more and more hybrid cars, each one a tiny boost to the economy. With growing companies making wind-power equipment and infrastructure, not only are jobs created, but oil dependency is lessened.

I discovered the other day that every car tire consumes seven barrels of oil in its manufacture. As long as we have an socio-economic system predicated on digging stuff out of the ground, using it or burning it, and throwing it away, and doing this is in increasing numbers each year, we're going to be in trouble.

[Gerontion]

It is therefore reasonable to accept the results as being honest.

Which seems more likely?

(i) Five climate scientists are registered at Thaivisa. (All of whom are, by an odd statistical quirk, denialists yet none of whom contribute to the thread.)

(ii) Five members of Thaivisa have lied about being climate scientists.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Gerontion

[bonobo]

 

Toyota is selling more and more hybrid cars, each one a tiny boost to the economy. With growing companies making wind-power equipment and infrastructure, not only are jobs created, but oil dependency is lessened.

I discovered the other day that every car tire consumes seven barrels of oil in its manufacture. As long as we have an socio-economic system predicated on digging stuff out of the ground, using it or burning it, and throwing it away, and doing this is in increasing numbers each year, we're going to be in trouble.

Point taken, but let's figure out how to make tires with less oil?  That figure, which I have also read, includes the oil necessary to make the tire itself, the transportation costs of the tire to the store as well as the raw materials to the plant, and the power necessary to run the plant.  So that leave several avenues to which we can focus attention on making a tire less costly in terms of petrochemicals.

Additionally, if you recycle the tires, then the only carbon emissions come from the power generation and transportation costs.  The carbon in the tires themselves remain locked up.

Regardless, I would rather have people at work making more fuel efficient cars than making SUV's and the like. Both need tires, so I would rather have smaller tires, or even the same size tires, for that matter, on a more fuel efficient car, even if that car is a fuel-efficient SUV.

[Gerontion]

To a certain extent I agree but the solution to the problem of SUVs isn't a Prius, it's abandoning the model of society which says everyone gets a car and they can do with it what they like. I'm pretty sure - but could be wrong - that there's no permutation of factors which is going simultaneously to allow some variant of our current living arrangements and - more importantly - an environment which we're not degrading and thereby reducing the long-term carrying capacity of the planet. More fuel efficient planes and Priuses for all might slow very slightly the rate of degradation but that's not really an adequate solution.

[pjclark1]

As usual both sides are entrenched in indefensible arguments that go round and round.

It must be time to close this thread or change the title to "Is there a God"

[bonobo]

To a certain extent I agree but the solution to the problem of SUVs isn't a Prius, it's abandoning the model of society which says everyone gets a car and they can do with it what they like. I'm pretty sure - but could be wrong - that there's no permutation of factors which is going simultaneously to allow some variant of our current living arrangements and - more importantly - an environment which we're not degrading and thereby reducing the long-term carrying capacity of the planet. More fuel efficient planes and Priuses for all might slow very slightly the rate of degradation but that's not really an adequate solution.

No, it is not an adequate solution, and I didn't mean to imply that.  But it is an example only of one small part of a way to mitigate the problem.  Add that to hundreds of other valid ideas, and taken together, you really will have made an impact.

The problem I see is that aside form the deniers who believe nothing is wrong, many of those who do believe there is a problem see it as too big for a solution, so they are paralyzed.  Or they are looking for one big fix, so they ignore Priuses/wind turbines/cleaner coal plants/tidal power/rooftop farming/etc as none of them will do much more than make a small dent on the problem.  But each of these are today's technology, and all can be implented right now.  And taken together, they will have an impact while we still research for better ways to deal with the situation while trying to shift the mindset of the people of the world to live a more sustainable life.

Not to harp on the Prius, but when Honda came out with their hybrids, not many people took notice.  But when the Prius came out, somehow, the Hollywood A-list took notice and started buying them.  All of a sudden, it was cool to have a Prius, and sales skyrocketed (I could not even buy one in California and had to get one in Oregon.)  Say what you want about Hollywood, but the fact of the matter is that is is possible, especially through pop culture, to shift the mentality of the masses. So I do think it is possible to slowly shift people from lifestyles which are not sustainable before events overcome us all.

[Gerontion]

The problem I see is that aside form the deniers who believe nothing is wrong, many of those who do believe there is a problem see it as too big for a solution, so they are paralyzed. Or they are looking for one big fix, so they ignore Priuses/wind turbines/cleaner coal plants/tidal power/rooftop farming/etc as none of them will do much more than make a small dent on the problem. But each of these are today's technology, and all can be implented right now. And taken together, they will have an impact while we still research for better ways to deal with the situation while trying to shift the mindset of the people of the world to live a more sustainable life.

Well, some of those things are good (rooftop gardening), some mistaken (Priuses, for example) but there's a fairly low limit on how much individual actions can achieve. For example, I'm in the middle of building an adobe house and when that's done I'm going to be as self-sufficient in food as I can because by doing so I can prevent a few tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere but I'd be a fool to think that this is of any real consequence compared to the actions of states and large corporations. By comparison to what we do, "if the US military operations in Iraq were ranked as a country in terms of emissions, it would emit more CO2 each year than 139 of the world's nations do annually. Falling between New Zealand and Cuba, the war emits more than 60% of all countries." America - and China and India and the EU - need to do a lot as governments and I just don't see much evidence of it happening. If you take South Africa out of the equation, gas flaring in the Niger Delta is the principle source of CO2 emissions in sub-Saharan Africa. How much is Shell going to do about this? Not much, I expect. And at the same time, the latest research is showing that the safe level for emissions is 350ppm, when, rather unfortunately, we're at about 390 right now (and 460ppm when you take into account the CO2e values of methane and the rest) so we need somehow to pull a negative carbon economy out of the air. We have to try - with localisation and renewables and the dismantling of the consumer economy and everything else - but it would be foolhardy to have unduly high expectations of success and if I had children, I'd be preparing them to inhabit a far more unpleasant and unstable world than they do now.

[bonobo]

Well, some of those things are good (rooftop gardening), some mistaken (Priuses, for example) but there's a fairly low limit on how much individual actions can achieve. For example, I'm in the middle of building an adobe house and when that's done I'm going to be as self-sufficient in food as I can because by doing so I can prevent a few tons of CO2 going into the atmosphere but I'd be a fool to think that this is of any real consequence compared to the actions of states and large corporations. 

Of course governments and large corporations need to get involved, and that is what Copenhagen should be doing, getting them at least started.

But do not ignore the consequences of individual actions such as what you are doing.  Multiply that by the millions, and there is a measurable effect.

And don't knock the Prius.  Sure, I have read some of the opinions of green evaluators, but that fact of the matter is that it does take less gas than other vehicles.  And if all vehicles could even adopt the immediate start and stop of engines feature so that they are not idling at stoplights, this would diminish gas usage.  BUt equally as important, a car such as the Prius begins to have an impact on the collective psyche of the population, showing that it is OK to think green.  So what if a hybrid is not the ultimate solution to driving?  It is just a first step along the way.

[mojaco]

It is therefore reasonable to accept the results as being honest.

Which seems more likely?

(i) Five climate scientists are registered at Thaivisa. (All of whom are, by an odd statistical quirk, denialists yet none of whom contribute to the thread.)

(ii) Five members of Thaivisa have lied about being climate scientists.

I fail to see why take a poll at all if there is no credibility given to its result? Or is taking such a poll as this one simply a clever way for one to troll while not seeming to do so?

[Jingthing]

Are people this naive? This is an unscientific poll for DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. There is no way to verify those who claim to be scientists. Obviously, people may decide to fake that to make it appear FALSELY that climate scientists deny global warming. Any and all polling here is also completely unscientific and anyone who implies differently doesn't know the first thing about polling.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Jingthing

[mojaco]

Are people this naive? This is an unscientific poll for DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY. There is no way to verify those who claim to be scientists. Obviously, people may decide to fake that to make it appear FALSELY that climate scientists deny global warming. Any and all polling here is also completely unscientific and anyone who implies differently doesn't know the first thing about polling.

Thank you JT, so hopefully now the two sides will stop focusing on the results of the poll and get back to some substantive discussion. I for one am gaining much pro/con info from the discussions. I'm glad this thread was started.

[RickBradford]

The feeling that if we get 4 C degrees warmer, we are heading for HUMAN EXTINCTION is part of the MAINSTREAM SCIENCE global warming theory

JT, did you manage to find the link to the source for this yet?

I would like to research this further, and as the originator of this thread, you probably have the information I'm seeking.

Thanks.

Edited December 16, 2009 by RickBradford

[powderpuff]

Impossible & the debate is settled. Gore flat refuses to debate with anyone who knows anything. Big fat slug coward flying around in his private jet.

lol. The score is ZERO - 5 LOL.

Edited December 16, 2009 by powderpuff

[Jonathanpattaya]

What's you degree in?

Not in climate science or a related field. As I said earlier in this thread, my knowledge is that of an educated layman.

Exactly, so you are no more qualified than most of us who have given an opinion on this topic.

Why not broaden your bigoted mind with a good look at the information available to us all.

Incidentally, not only does the "hole in the ozone layer" not exist according to some erudite scholars but, the ozone layer itself is a myth.

I don't believe global warming is more than a natural cycle which has been seized as money-making scaremongering.

Edited December 16, 2009 by Jonathanpattaya

[bonobo]

Impossible & the debate is settled. Gore flat refuses to debate with anyone who knows anything. Big fat slug coward flying around in his private jet.

lol. The score is ZERO - 5 LOL.

Uh, Al Gore is a politician who is now a spokesperson, not a scientist.  He never claims to be an expert, only a person bringing the message, and yes, sometimes he gets that message screwed up.  So how does his ability to regurgitate figures have any effect on the underlying issue?

[bonobo]

I don't believe global warming is more than a natural cycle which has been seized as money-making scaremongering.

OK, let's say you are right and that nothing man has done has even the slightest effect on global warming.  So what now?  Ignore it?  Go on with the status quo?

[RickBradford]

OK, let's say you are right and that nothing man has done has even the slightest effect on global warming. So what now? Ignore it? Go on with the status quo?

No.

And this is one of the tragedies of the debate - "man-made global warming" has taken centre stage to such an extent that man's other dangers to the planet have been sidelined.

If we can see beyond this CO² nonsense, there are real problems out there that need fixing.

Humans need to have a lighter footprint on the planet, and, yes, we need to find an alternative to fossil fuels, because they are going to run out some day.

Overfishing. Deforestation. Habitat destruction and loss. Overgrazing and irrigation ruining land by erosion and salination. River pollution by long-lived toxins. Marine pollution. Monoculture. Waste and trash. Invasive species.

Air pollution is serious for human health worldwide; there are suggestions that soot (which being black absorbs heat) is partly responsible for Himalayan glacier melting.

I hesitate to mention over-population, simply because the remedies are so draconian. But something will have to be done.

But the more we allow this narrow and misguided focus on CO² to dominate the agenda, the less we are able to deal with these real problems that have proved themselves to be serious.

[Gerontion]

Exactly, so you are no more qualified than most of us who have given an opinion on this topic.

Either you haven't bothered to read my posts or you haven't understood the astonishingly simple point I made, so to summarise: It's not my opinion which counts, it's the opinions of those with expertise which count and it is far more rational to believe that theories of climate change are true than it is to believe - in the absence of any supporting evidence - that there is either an epic mistake or an epic con. Now, many people aren't rational - evolution, for example, is a minority belief in the US - so I understand that many are happy in their irrationally. I don't really expect to change the minds of denialists any more than I expect to change the minds of creationists so if you want to wallow in your fundamentalist hatred of science and love of bovine stupidity, you go right ahead. After all, what do I care? Either way, the world's almost certainly fuc_ked and if you want to entertain your idiotic ideas, well, who gives a toss?

[Jonathanpattaya]

After all, what do I care? Either way, the world's almost certainly fuc_ked and if you want to entertain your idiotic ideas, well, who gives a toss?

The outstanding final analysis of the "educated layman" Gerontion!

Edited December 17, 2009 by Jonathanpattaya