Global Warming

[mockingbird_franklin]

Actually having done some research, suspiciously, i can't find any records on the weather before records began, Equally suspiciously, On the period before records began, whilst I can find first hand written references to the weather, I can't find any such first hand references to weather before mankind and writing existed Hmm after some consideration, the opinion of the 'institute for the investigation of were weather comes from' is: it's looks likely that it's possible that it's 99% probable that there is a chance that maybe weather is caused by the existence of man.

 

 

 

 

note: like tonyh, this also not a serious post

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

MM Global warming is evidenced in any weather experienced it seems.

What does weather have to do with global warming?

 

Good question to ask those that point to changes in weather experienced as evidence of proof of global warming? Climate change is usually bundled up along with global warming, Climate is the historical and prevalent experience of weather (meteorological events or conditions) in a region, this includes temperature.

Edited September 28, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[villaguy]

Actually having done some research, suspiciously, i can't find any records on the weather before records began, Equally suspiciously, On the period before records began, whilst I can find first hand written references to the weather, I can't find any such first hand references to weather before mankind and writing existed Hmm after some consideration, the opinion of the 'institute for the investigation of were weather comes from' is: it's looks likely that it's possible that it's 99% probable that there is a chance that maybe weather is caused by the existence of man.

 

 

 

 

note: like tonyh, this also not a serious post

It's almost believable that is serious, as it's constructed with remarkable similarities to the ones the 'real' sceptics use

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

*hit quote instead of edit

Edited September 28, 2013 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

It's almost believable that is serious, as it's constructed with remarkable similarities to the ones the 'real' sceptics use

 

 

What, you can see that it's almost believable that such a post and the staement contained was serious? wow, Are you interested in buying a money tree seed?

[blandy]

 

 

Goverments recieve more in taxes from Fossil fuels and so on than any renewable or Green industry. Way way more.

 

I think that was part of my point! Since the introduction of the climate change agenda has that revenue for the government increased or decreased?

 

 

 

 

 

Goverments recieve more in taxes from Fossil fuels and so on than any renewable or Green industry. Way way more.

The reason they receive such large Tax revenues from Fossil Fuels is the ramping up of such Taxes Based On the Arguements that global warming is caused by mankind. Hmmm think that through.

 

I have, We seem to be deducing different things from the same information.

You have a point that if fossil fuels are taxed more highly (due to climate change impact of it) then revenue for the gov’t could go up. It sounds logical at first glance.

However, there’s a limit to the rate they can be taxed due to things like fuel bill protests, petrol tanker strikes, freezing pensioners and the like. There’s also the point that if you tax things too highly then people use less and revenue drops. That’s the whole point of taxes set to discourage consumption.

 

So  if Gov’t takes action to reduce fossil fuel use, either via taxes, or via other means, then their revenue from them will fall in real terms.

If they pursue wind farms and wave energy, their fossil fuel tax revenues will fall.

 

The argument that scientists are somehow motivated to reach their conclusion because a government gets revenue from fossil fuels and they somehow benefit from that is not supportable, far as I can see. Scientists are urging less fossil fuel use, as that’s the significant part of the CO2 which is causing the climate to change and the oceans to acidify.

[VillaForever1970]

Has nobody actually thought that its slowing down because as a human race we’ve been trying to recycle do more environmentally things for years now and it actually might be helping?

[limpid]

I think that will be a factor that's been considered in many of those peer reviewed studies.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

 

Goverments recieve more in taxes from Fossil fuels and so on than any renewable or Green industry. Way way more.

 

I think that was part of my point! Since the introduction of the climate change agenda has that revenue for the government increased or decreased?

 

 

 

 

 

Goverments recieve more in taxes from Fossil fuels and so on than any renewable or Green industry. Way way more.

The reason they receive such large Tax revenues from Fossil Fuels is the ramping up of such Taxes Based On the Arguements that global warming is caused by mankind. Hmmm think that through.

 

I have, We seem to be deducing different things from the same information.

You have a point that if fossil fuels are taxed more highly (due to climate change impact of it) then revenue for the gov’t could go up. It sounds logical at first glance.

However, there’s a limit to the rate they can be taxed due to things like fuel bill protests, petrol tanker strikes, freezing pensioners and the like. There’s also the point that if you tax things too highly then people use less and revenue drops. That’s the whole point of taxes set to discourage consumption.

 

So  if Gov’t takes action to reduce fossil fuel use, either via taxes, or via other means, then their revenue from them will fall in real terms.

If they pursue wind farms and wave energy, their fossil fuel tax revenues will fall.

 

The argument that scientists are somehow motivated to reach their conclusion because a government gets revenue from fossil fuels and they somehow benefit from that is not supportable, far as I can see. Scientists are urging less fossil fuel use, as that’s the significant part of the CO2 which is causing the climate to change and the oceans to acidify.

 

I actuall can sort of agree with this analysis and can see the reasoning used to reach it, and it is pretty sound reasoning,

 

However, whilst we have indeed reached a plateau in the levels of taxation that can be levied on fossil fuels and I believe there has been a increasing recognition by governments of this being reached, the climate change, and notice the movement from global warming to climate change when the predictions have  proved inaccurate, has allowed the justification of reaching this level of taxation in the first place with minimal questioning, now this level of direct taxation has been reached this hasn't stopped further indirect taxation backed by a climate change argument, There has just been a shift to new indirect taxation, based on things such as carbon offsets, footprints etc.

 

The man made climate change mantra is still driving the acceptance of these new taxes. Governments still seem more keen to tax fossil fuels in increasing amounts rather than push for greener technology use, but it's a fine balancing act to appear sincere, I agree the change over to greener technologies leave the government a dilemma on how to counter the losses of fossil fuel taxes. The government can use such "proof" to justify it's actions as green whilst not actually doing a great deal that is green, I believe we have a situation were the government don't actually want to decrease fossil fuel use (both through own self interest and big business). The other dilemma is that many green technologies will mean greater personal control over the generation of energy and as such is gonna be harder for the buddies of government (big corporations) to make the huge profits they do under the current system of energy supply, greater individual control isn't what governments or big business want people to have.

 

Any scepticism isn't Bourne out by a wish to see continuing and increasing use of fossil fuels, To see a continuation of a wasteful consumerist economy. I personally would love to see cleaner greener energy that can break away from the current energy supply models and give people greater freedom and control over their needs, I just don't think this is what we are seeing by the governments Hijacking and propagandising of it whilst in bed with those that profit from our fossil fuel based consumerist economies. This is where my scepticism comes from, the hypocrisy of those using the findings and the feeling things don't quite add up and the proof pointed too isn't as concrete as it's presented to be. I'm a sceptic as defined by the definitions provided below, notice that doesnt mean i won't accept something I am sceptical about, just require concrete proof.

 

lets look up the means and etymology of scepticism,

from latin scepticus which in turn came from the greek:

 

skeptikos, “thoughtful, inquiring”

skeptomai, “I consider”

skopeō, “I view, examine”

 

The dictionary meaning of sceptic is Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs and claims presented by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

 

I would say it's everyones duty to be sceptical, about almost anything you are told, and many of our most important scientific and social advances have been bought about by scepticism

[Condimentalist]

Has nobody actually thought that its slowing down because as a human race we’ve been trying to recycle do more environmentally things for years now and it actually might be helping?

 

Pretty sure global C02 emissions are still on the rise so I doubt that that will help. Also changes like that would take a number of years to become manifest in the climate system.

 

 

I'm afraid I'm with the scientists and not the Top Gear fans on ths one. Pretty certain we're to blame.

[Xann]

If the economics demand we gamble with the future of the Earth, it's the economy that needs to be addressed.

Edited September 29, 2013 by Xann

[limpid]

Which predictions do you think have not happened? I'm not aware of any data falling outside of he error bars within the models. A Nobel prize awaits the paper which backs up your point

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Bourne

 

 

 

?

Edited September 29, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner

[coda]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQLvK6kxeU

[blandy]

I actuall can sort of agree with this analysis and can see the reasoning used to reach it, and it is pretty sound reasoning,

 

However, whilst we have indeed reached a plateau in the levels of taxation that can be levied on fossil fuels and I believe there has been a increasing recognition by governments of this being reached, the climate change, and notice the movement from global warming to climate change when the predictions have  proved inaccurate, has allowed the justification of reaching this level of taxation in the first place with minimal questioning, now this level of direct taxation has been reached this hasn't stopped further indirect taxation backed by a climate change argument, There has just been a shift to new indirect taxation, based on things such as carbon offsets, footprints etc.

 

The man made climate change mantra is still driving the acceptance of these new taxes. Governments still seem more keen to tax fossil fuels in increasing amounts rather than push for greener technology use, but it's a fine balancing act to appear sincere, I agree the change over to greener technologies leave the government a dilemma on how to counter the losses of fossil fuel taxes. The government can use such "proof" to justify it's actions as green whilst not actually doing a great deal that is green, I believe we have a situation were the government don't actually want to decrease fossil fuel use (both through own self interest and big business). The other dilemma is that many green technologies will mean greater personal control over the generation of energy and as such is gonna be harder for the buddies of government (big corporations) to make the huge profits they do under the current system of energy supply, greater individual control isn't what governments or big business want people to have.

 

Any scepticism isn't Bourne out by a wish to see continuing and increasing use of fossil fuels, To see a continuation of a wasteful consumerist economy. I personally would love to see cleaner greener energy that can break away from the current energy supply models and give people greater freedom and control over their needs, I just don't think this is what we are seeing by the governments Hijacking and propagandising of it whilst in bed with those that profit from our fossil fuel based consumerist economies. This is where my scepticism comes from, the hypocrisy of those using the findings and the feeling things don't quite add up and the proof pointed too isn't as concrete as it's presented to be. I'm a sceptic as defined by the definitions provided below, notice that doesnt mean i won't accept something I am sceptical about, just require concrete proof.

 

lets look up the means and etymology of scepticism,

from latin scepticus which in turn came from the greek:

 

skeptikos, “thoughtful, inquiring”

skeptomai, “I consider”

skopeō, “I view, examine”

 

The dictionary meaning of sceptic is Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs and claims presented by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

 

I would say it's everyones duty to be sceptical, about almost anything you are told, and many of our most important scientific and social advances have been bought about by scepticism

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer in detail. I agree with parts of it, it's a reasoned argument.

where I disagree is some of the genralisation, or specificisation (is that a word?) - what I mean by that is things like "Any scepticism isn't Bourne out by a wish to see continuing and increasing use of fossil fuels"

 

That might be the case for you, specifically, but there are a heck of a lot of vested interests who absolutely deny it, due to a wish to see continuing use of fossil fuels. The xtent of Oil and fossil fuel company funding of "sceptical" think tanks is huge. Absolutely huge. They are desperate to try and counter the evidence, and muddy the waters.

I accept in your personal case (and many others) that you are not convinced, so are "sceptical". That's kind of as it should be.

Me personally, I look at the evidence, look at who provides it and listen to the experts. It convinces me, totally. I don't want higher bills, more expensive fuel and all that. Who would? It's not in my interests for it to be true. But still, I find the evidence overwhelming.

ANd this is where the definition of sceptic you posted seems to me to being interpreted tangentially - I'm naturally sceptical, as are you. About all sorts of things. For me though, when the evidence and data is clear, - "requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim" - continuing to doubt a fact/theory/thesis without new or counteracting evidence is no longer "scepticism" it's something else. The emotive term used is "denial". I'm not alleging that is the case for you. Just talking generally.

Denial hasn't brought about any new discoveries or advances, that I can recall.

If you're unconvinced, (as opposed to convinced it isn't happening), then you're right to keep looking for evidence.

If you're convinced it isn't happening, then whatever evidence convinces you of that should be subjected to the same scepticism you inherently have.

 

I thinkit's also true that science continues to operate on a basis of measure, test, analyse, propose explanation for observations and then review that expanation widely and openly. Within that process there will always be some uncertainties about small parts of the explanation, about the way something was measured, or about the accuracy of measurements etc. The openness allows others to re-do the work, the analysis and propose an alternative thesis.

The IPCC, NASA andso on - they all detail where the money comes from, who is involved, reference all their data and reports and so on.

"sceptical" bodies, by and large, do not.  When it gets looked into it is frequently found that the funding is from fossil fuels, references are inaccurate, "supporting" scientists are misrepresented and evidence is deliberately skewed. In other words, at its worst, the conclusion is decided, then steps taken to try and support that conclusion. It's not measure and test and analyse and conclude. It's the other way round. It's "how can we show what we want to be true."?

[PaulC]

http://www.reading.ac.uk/news-and-events/releases/PR536809.aspx

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

Bourne

 

 

 

?

 

Cheers for pointing out the typo, obviously a brain fart moment. Nice to add to the debate in such a constructive manner.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

I actuall can sort of agree with this analysis and can see the reasoning used to reach it, and it is pretty sound reasoning,

 

However, whilst we have indeed reached a plateau in the levels of taxation that can be levied on fossil fuels and I believe there has been a increasing recognition by governments of this being reached, the climate change, and notice the movement from global warming to climate change when the predictions have  proved inaccurate, has allowed the justification of reaching this level of taxation in the first place with minimal questioning, now this level of direct taxation has been reached this hasn't stopped further indirect taxation backed by a climate change argument, There has just been a shift to new indirect taxation, based on things such as carbon offsets, footprints etc.

 

The man made climate change mantra is still driving the acceptance of these new taxes. Governments still seem more keen to tax fossil fuels in increasing amounts rather than push for greener technology use, but it's a fine balancing act to appear sincere, I agree the change over to greener technologies leave the government a dilemma on how to counter the losses of fossil fuel taxes. The government can use such "proof" to justify it's actions as green whilst not actually doing a great deal that is green, I believe we have a situation were the government don't actually want to decrease fossil fuel use (both through own self interest and big business). The other dilemma is that many green technologies will mean greater personal control over the generation of energy and as such is gonna be harder for the buddies of government (big corporations) to make the huge profits they do under the current system of energy supply, greater individual control isn't what governments or big business want people to have.

 

Any scepticism isn't Bourne out by a wish to see continuing and increasing use of fossil fuels, To see a continuation of a wasteful consumerist economy. I personally would love to see cleaner greener energy that can break away from the current energy supply models and give people greater freedom and control over their needs, I just don't think this is what we are seeing by the governments Hijacking and propagandising of it whilst in bed with those that profit from our fossil fuel based consumerist economies. This is where my scepticism comes from, the hypocrisy of those using the findings and the feeling things don't quite add up and the proof pointed too isn't as concrete as it's presented to be. I'm a sceptic as defined by the definitions provided below, notice that doesnt mean i won't accept something I am sceptical about, just require concrete proof.

 

lets look up the means and etymology of scepticism,

from latin scepticus which in turn came from the greek:

 

skeptikos, “thoughtful, inquiring”

skeptomai, “I consider”

skopeō, “I view, examine”

 

The dictionary meaning of sceptic is Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs and claims presented by others, requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim.

 

I would say it's everyones duty to be sceptical, about almost anything you are told, and many of our most important scientific and social advances have been bought about by scepticism

 

Thanks for taking the time to answer in detail. I agree with parts of it, it's a reasoned argument.

where I disagree is some of the genralisation, or specificisation (is that a word?) - what I mean by that is things like "Any scepticism isn't Bourne out by a wish to see continuing and increasing use of fossil fuels"

 

That might be the case for you, specifically, but there are a heck of a lot of vested interests who absolutely deny it, due to a wish to see continuing use of fossil fuels. The xtent of Oil and fossil fuel company funding of "sceptical" think tanks is huge. Absolutely huge. They are desperate to try and counter the evidence, and muddy the waters.

I accept in your personal case (and many others) that you are not convinced, so are "sceptical". That's kind of as it should be.

Me personally, I look at the evidence, look at who provides it and listen to the experts. It convinces me, totally. I don't want higher bills, more expensive fuel and all that. Who would? It's not in my interests for it to be true. But still, I find the evidence overwhelming.

ANd this is where the definition of sceptic you posted seems to me to being interpreted tangentially - I'm naturally sceptical, as are you. About all sorts of things. For me though, when the evidence and data is clear, - "requiring strong evidence before accepting any belief or claim" - continuing to doubt a fact/theory/thesis without new or counteracting evidence is no longer "scepticism" it's something else. The emotive term used is "denial". I'm not alleging that is the case for you. Just talking generally.

Denial hasn't brought about any new discoveries or advances, that I can recall.

If you're unconvinced, (as opposed to convinced it isn't happening), then you're right to keep looking for evidence.

If you're convinced it isn't happening, then whatever evidence convinces you of that should be subjected to the same scepticism you inherently have.

 

I thinkit's also true that science continues to operate on a basis of measure, test, analyse, propose explanation for observations and then review that expanation widely and openly. Within that process there will always be some uncertainties about small parts of the explanation, about the way something was measured, or about the accuracy of measurements etc. The openness allows others to re-do the work, the analysis and propose an alternative thesis.

The IPCC, NASA andso on - they all detail where the money comes from, who is involved, reference all their data and reports and so on.

"sceptical" bodies, by and large, do not.  When it gets looked into it is frequently found that the funding is from fossil fuels, references are inaccurate, "supporting" scientists are misrepresented and evidence is deliberately skewed. In other words, at its worst, the conclusion is decided, then steps taken to try and support that conclusion. It's not measure and test and analyse and conclude. It's the other way round. It's "how can we show what we want to be true."?

 

Fair enough, some of your criticisms are accepted and I'd admit have validity to my comments as presented, but i think it's more a case of my poor and careless use of English in some of the points I've made that has led to the mistake of appearing to hold generalisations and opinions as facts rather than me considering them as so, We are dealing with an incredibly complex naturally occurring some would say organic and volatile system which has been in operation for billions of years and of which we have very limited data to comprehend. My issue is scientific research is easily jumped on whenever it fits an agenda, I may seem in denial, but truly my scepticism derives from the potentially corrupted use of the science for other agendas. I've never been sceptical as to the likelihood of climate change, 4.5 billion years of never ending climate change would point to any believing such as a fool. my scepticism revolves around how strongly the evidence that any climate change we are experiencing must be due to man made factors. As I've already said I don't support the continued consumerism based around fossil fuels and would probably describe many of my views as 'green', I'm a strong believer in sustainability and reusing, repairing and recycling, of using as little natural resources and as sustainable as possible, My doubt doesn't come from wanting the keeping of cheap fossil fuel based energy (not that is particularlt cheap anymore). Those energy policies have done great damage to both human kind and our planet and befitted a few financially and by now we should have moved away from them, My feeling is such advances are being suppressed by interested parties and have been througout modern history, this is where governments should be working and putting their focus, but they are not, they still support the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby, whilst painting the opposite picture..

[villaguy]

I don't think the scientists are working for the governments agendas, it would be far easier for society to carry on regardless without any complications made by these scientific findings. It is important the work they are doing, there are many cases of human environmental impact being reversed as a result. The use of DDT and CFCs being two examples, it's far better to react to solid predictions than to do so once it may be too late.

[blandy]

...my scepticism derives from the potentially corrupted use of the science for other agendas. I've never been sceptical as to the likelihood of climate change, 4.5 billion years of never ending climate change would point to any believing such as a fool. my scepticism revolves around how strongly the evidence that any climate change we are experiencing must be due to man made factors. As I've already said I don't support the continued consumerism based around fossil fuels and would probably describe many of my views as 'green', I'm a strong believer in sustainability and reusing, repairing and recycling, of using as little natural resources and as sustainable as possible, My doubt doesn't come from wanting the keeping of cheap fossil fuel based energy (not that is particularlt cheap anymore). Those energy policies have done great damage to both human kind and our planet and befitted a few financially and by now we should have moved away from them, My feeling is such advances are being suppressed by interested parties and have been througout modern history, this is where governments should be working and putting their focus, but they are not, they still support the vested interests of the fossil fuel lobby, whilst painting the opposite picture..

I agree completley with all of that, apart from the very first part, where while I accept science can be and is sometimes used for "other agendas", I don't see that as applying to the conclusion that climate change seen in the last 100 years is in greta part due to human activity. I think that's a no brainer, really. I have lloked at loads of evidence that demonstrates it to be so.

The rest, I share the same view, basically.