For anyone who watched the recent Channel 4 programme about climate change...

[watervole]

"the programme - and the channel - is facing a serious challenge to its own credibility after one of the most distinguished scientists that it featured said his views had been "grossly distorted" by the film, and made it clear that he believed human pollution did warm the climate."

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2347526.ece

"is the sun responsible now?

Some sceptics say so and probably it played the major role until quite recently. But over the past three decades, solar activity has scarcely risen, while temperatures have shot up - a fact disguised in the film. What has gone up is CO2 and even top sceptic Nigel Lawson admits it is "highly likely" that the gas has "played a significant part" in global warming this century."

Comments

[watervole.livejournal.com]

The reason it's generally presented as fact is becasue the vast majority of scientists have become converts in recent years after looking at all the new data.

Ten years ago, it was a totally different story - then there was meaningful dissent that had some validity. THE dissenters are now in a small minority - they only get airtime because TV channels like to present controversy and know that most of their audience don't have sufficient knowledge to know where the balance really lies.

The scientific consensus worldwide is in the IPCC report - and you could put up a good case for conspiricy theory in the data that was kept out of that becasue only 90% rather than 95% of scientists agree on it. THe potential methane and and CO2 feedback loops if permafrost starts to melt are horrendous.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

But as I said before, it is still a theory. And to make decisions about the environment based on a theory is a bit dodgy to say the least.

OK, it makes sense to turn things off, just because it saves you money. But I am against extra tax on flights, for example, because that will start to price some people out of flying. It will start to become again something just for the rich, which I oppose on principle, especially when it is only based on a theory.

Also, some politicians are using this as an excuse to slow down development in the third world, where many countries and areas need development urgently. To leave them in poverty just based on a theory is extremely wrong in my view.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

A theory that 90% of scientists agree on. A theory that is predicting climate changes that are happening as predicted. A theory that says most of the third world is totally screwed unless we act NOW.

The logic is clear. If we don't act, there's a 5-10% chance we'll all come out fine.

On the other hand, if we don't act, there's a 90-95% chance of massive drought in Africa, advancing deserts in China, the loss of much of America's grain belt, the loss of the Amazon rain forest, massive water shortages in Australia, etc.

We cannot wait until we are 100% certain because by that point it will be too late for us to be able to do anything. When we hit the point of millions dead, it will be too late to say "I wish we'd cut CO2 emissions 50 years ago.".

THe rich will survive, the poor will die. Go and read the Stern report. You're very keen to quote anything that debunks global warming, but you haven't made the effort to read the data that supports it.

Go on - read it and THEN tell me it's 'just a theory'.

If it's a choice between me being able to afford to fly to Japan or children dying in Africa, then I find it an easy choice to make. Taxing flights may cut out the lower income groups, starvation affects the poorest of all.

I can never figure why you aren't out there, shouting that the vulnerable should be protected.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

The last time I saw a consensus of anything like that scale was in the late 1990s when nearly all the computer scientists were predicting doom and gloom for computers everywhere when the clock ticked past midnight on 31 December 1999. And they had real live machines to look at and play with, and they were wrong on a massive scale.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Er, one of the reasons they were 'wrong' was because people took action to prevent the problem.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

Sure, many companies spent many thousands of pounds protecting themselves against the so-called millennium bug, and their computers were fine. The problem with that is that many companies also totally ignored the problem, and their computers were fine as well. In other words, the ones who spent the money wasted it.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

I think a far greater threat than a dubious theory about global warming to the future of the human race just happened in parliament tonight with the vote to carry on making nuclear weapons.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

You're passing judgement without bothering to study the data.

Go and read the Stern Report, THEN and ONLY then do you have the right to call it a dubious theory.

[steverogerson.livejournal.com]

It is a 700 page report; I don't have the time to read it. However, I do know that opinion on it is split among both the scientific and business communities. As well as many scientists agreeing with what it says, a lot also think it is fundamentally flawed.