Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
At worst we'd see the collapse of modern societies, but not extinction.

Oh boy Oh boy Oh boy!

There's some hilarious ignorance from human climate change deniers in this thread.

What I love the most is the way the goalposts keep moving for the deniers. First it was "Global warming is not happening!". When it becomes apparent that global warming is indeed happening, it becomes "Global Warming is not caused by humans!" When it becomes a bit more likely that it is caused by humans it becomes "Well it would have been part of a natural cycle anyhow, we're saving the world from a new ice age!"
I love it.

We're probably too late to stop any warming, but the denial of the importance of the ecosystem and the knock on effect of change on fragile farm ecosystems is hilarious. Equally hilarious is ignoring the fact that we need a sustainable energy solution sometime soon, and funding that research is pretty damn prudent.

Australia is like the poster child for ecological disasters, I guess this will be no different. Once all the profit has been mined out of the country by private interests whatever group are in power will pay the electoral price from a very angry australian population.

Also, no such thing as a climate scientist because the climate is so complex? Wow, how disappointing! Seriously, is that the argument now?
Bloody brilliant stuff here. Enjoy being on the wrong side of history, lads.

I love how like 97% of scientists believe humans contribute to global warming yet some jackass on the internet with no formal education in environmental sciences somehow has the arrogance to discredit these experts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 easysauce wrote:
good, it was a feel good do nothing tax, plain and simple.

all of kyoto was too, more taxes does not mean less pollution.

That's not entirely true Kyoto was successful with some countries.

What's that graph supposed to be showing, Cheesecat? Percentage of what is changing, exactly?

Net annual national greenhouse gas emissions since 1990, might have to to tilt your head to the left.

I don't get it, some countries promised to increase their greenhouse emissions?

I hate that graph more than anything I have ever hated since last night.

 motyak wrote:
I don't get it, some countries promised to increase their greenhouse emissions?

I would guess they promised to slow net growth (that is, if they expected growth of greenhouse gases to rise by 30%, they promise to constrain growth to 15% or something), but I'm not 100% sure.

 motyak wrote:
I don't get it, some countries promised to increase their greenhouse emissions?

I'm thinking countries put in limits of what they thought would be achievable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
I hate that graph more than anything I have ever hated since last night.

Why the anger?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 motyak wrote:
I don't get it, some countries promised to increase their greenhouse emissions?

I'm assuming that the pink ones in the positives are still lower emissions than their 1990 GHG emissions.

 Da Boss wrote:
There's some hilarious ignorance from human climate change deniers in this thread.

What I love the most is the way the goalposts keep moving for the deniers. First it was "Global warming is not happening!". When it becomes apparent that global warming is indeed happening, it becomes "Global Warming is not caused by humans!" When it becomes a bit more likely that it is caused by humans it becomes "Well it would have been part of a natural cycle anyhow, we're saving the world from a new ice age!"
I love it.

You really are in your own little world aren't you. Firstly we were warned about global cooling, then when it was discovered that we weren't about to be plunged into the next ice age it was global warming. Oh my, data doesn't really prove global temperature rises leading to melting ice caps and rising sea levels, so then we get climate change. Phew, can't argue with climate change, the weather is always changing.
Climate change also means not having to address any significant global temperature rise in the last 20 years despite increased industrial activity, loss of forests and increased used of fossil fuels worldwide.

Equally hilarious is ignoring the fact that we need a sustainable energy solution sometime soon, and funding that research is pretty damn prudent.

Even more hilarious is that no one is saying this, industry by its nature is always looking for the next step in efficiency and investing in research and design. What needs to happen is that everyone abides by the rules for safe disposal of waste material.

Australia is like the poster child for ecological disasters

Nothing to do with climate change. Australia is a dry continent with most of the land area covered by desert and grasslands. Of the forested areas, much relies on bushfires as part of the natural lifecycle . The problem is that more people are now living in forest areas.
The forest fires and droughts, along with floods in some parts, are all part of the natural cycle.

Enjoy being on the wrong side of history, lads.

Nah, too easy.

I would like to know why you think the climate is getting worse and why you think this change is due to industrial output. I mean if this is obvious science then there must be specific data that shows x amount of emissions results in x amount of change. Instead we have prats who claim every natural event is now the result of global warming.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

with Europe's savings reduced to just 1% from 1990 to 2008 and the developed world as a whole seeing its emissions rise by 7% in the same period.

Overall, the result is that global emissions have showed no sign of slowing down, as the chart below shows. In that sense, the Kyoto protocol has been a failure.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions

The global cooling thing was never a big thing in the scientific community.

In fact, there was a report in 1970 that talked about potential increases in temperature due to rising CO2 levels.

The quick rundown on wikipedia is actually not too terrible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

As for why scientists keep having to change predictions, it's because the exact effect of significantly higher PPM CO2 in the atmosphere (EDIT: and oceans, I should mention oceans because the effect on them could be significant) isn't known with 100% certainty. There are a lot of factors no one can nail down with certainty, like what happens with the gulf stream and what effect that has on temperatures all over Europe.

The main thing scientists can agree on is this, pumping tons of CO2 that wasn't in the atmosphere into the atmosphere in a short period of time will likely have effects we cannot fully predict. If they will be mild or devastating is what they're trying to figure out. In addition, these changes in the atmospheric makeup are occurring at rates far quicker than they normally do under natural conditions, barring something like a Yellowstone eruption (which would be massively devastating).

As to how we fix it, well the bad news there is that we've already pumped out so much CO2 that CO2 levels won't return to pre-industrial levels no matter what we do for something like 1000 years, unless we found a way to harvest CO2 from the oceans (biologically engineered algae or something). The way to slow growth though is to invest in renewables (a more efficient solar panel would do wonders), and continue to invest in nuclear power. There's no silver bullet (until we figure out energy efficient nuclear fusion), so R&D across all possibilities is important.

That's the worst part of this action in Australia, no one likes higher energy bills, but the cuts to R&D lower the chance that a more efficient energy source will be found.

As for the Kyoto protocol working or not, the problem is mainly nations like China and India, that are growing quickly, and doing so using fossil fuels, not clean energy. While a chunk of the developed world has cut back, another chunk has picked up the slack and then some trying to keep economic growth going. That's why technological innovations are so vital, economic growth requires power, and power right now requires fossil fuels. If we had some breakthroughs on the science front, we could replace fossil fuels with other things and the emission growth would curtail significantly.

The other thing about China and India is that they were not bound by the protocol and a lot of industry was transfered from western countries to those countries resulting in job loss for western workers, more profit for the shareholders and no reduction in emissions.

Well yes, but that's what tends to happen anyway when a nation has effectively turned several hundred million people into disposable workers, and import laws are lax in allowing goods produced via those workers to enter and be sold.

It's a difficult balancing game; unfettered economic growth vs. long term climate stability, especially when there isn't one set of rules everyone plays by. That being said, the solution isn't a race to the bottom. After all, even if western nations did away with all climate control policies, companies would still flee due to wages, or 401ks, or healthcare, or 40 hour work weeks, or those pesky basic human rights, you know, things they can safely ignore if only they go knocking on the right nation's doorstep.

The solution, in terms of constraining CO2 emissions around the world, is to make fossil fuels obsolete, something that could likely be done within a generation if the technology was wholeheartedly pursued. Instead, we have silly things like this Australian situation cutting R&D money, or in the US, huge subsidies for oil companies, while research grants to universities are attacked constantly. It's a one step forward, one step back situation that is really quite unfortunate.

What's happened with the Carbon Tax is actually a pretty good example that shows how the theatre of politics is perhaps more important than the reality of the legislation.

This story begins in 2007. The conservative Liberal government is in power, and both they and the opposition Labor party have a carbon trading scheme as part of their manifesto. The only real difference is that Labor want a scheme that connects to the European schemes, while the Liberals say they will put one in place as part of a future multi-national scheme.

Labor wins the election very handily, and comes to power for the first time in more than a decade. They are in a position of strength they've not really experienced before, not in terms of the number of seats they hold, but the popular support for many of the policies they hold, including a scheme for reducing carbon emissions. Unfortunately, it quickly becomes apparent that the Prime Minister is a complete noddy, he is abusive to other party members and senior bureaucrats, and delegates nothing - decisions begin getting made on the fly from his office, with no consultation or planning. Major reforms to education, healthcare, and tax are attempted, flunder under poor management and then are abandoned in favour of something else.

The highest profile policy of all of those failed efforts was the carbon tax, which as I mentioned above was not only a written policy of both major parties, had very strong support from both Rudd and Opposition Leader Turnbull, and strong support in the public in general (though specific proposals not so much, but that's always the case). But neither handled negotiations well, and Turnbull also handled politics within his own party really badly, opening the door for Abbott to challenge and win leadership, and immediately reject dealing with Labor for a carbon scheme.

The Rudd government lurched on for a while, eventually proving its incompetence once and for all when it failed to sell the population on a tax on the billions in profits made by large mining companies. In the night of Ginger Knives Rudd was removed as leader by Gillard, and she attempted to ride the goodwill of being our first lady PM to immediately call a new election.

Gillard did not run a good campaign, and what was meant to be an easy electoral win turned in to a close run thing, and as it got closer and closer Gillard started saying a lot of things just to win votes wherever she could... and the big one was stating there would be no price on carbon. Whether she believed what she was saying at the time is unknown, what matters is that when the election results came in she was only able to form government by making deals with the Greens and multiple independants, and the Greens would only come to the party if Gillard agreed to a carbon tax. She did, and so we got a carbon tax and her earlier campaign statement became an outright lie. Her standing in opinion polls plummetted, and while her government got a fair bit done despite their weak position, they were never at all popular and it was really just a waiting game for the next election for Abbott to become PM.

And while Rudd and Gillard were both eventually casualties of the political shambles around carbon reduction, so too was the scheme itself. There is little to no coherent debate over the realities of the current carbon tax, the average family pays about $200 a year more in energy prices... which any family on less than about $70,000 gets back in reduced taxes... but despite this people carry on as though the carbon tax is sending them bankrupt. Nor has it had any impact on business - any business with serious energy consumption like aluminium are exempt.

In attempt to avoid outright annihilation at the polls, Labor dumped Gillard in favour of Rudd, and he did reduce the defeat but Abbott was always going to win. And now he's planning on dumping the carbon tax, and the move has really strong popular support. Six years to take policy from overwhelmingly popular to very unpopular, and all it takes is a lot of political incompetence.

The interesting footnote is that Abbott went in to the 2010 and 2013 elections with a carbon reduction scheme of his own, called 'direct action'. It was this very vague idea in which government would fund thinktanks and directly subsidising green technology, but no real figures were ever produced on how much would be spent on this, or who would decide which technologies are best, because it was pretty clear to everyone it was just an obvious lie that Abbott told to pretend he was still interested in environmental policy. Since he's become PM he's not mentioned the idea at all, and actually cancelled funding for the one research organisation that did look in to renewable technology. Funnily enough that isn't seen as a lie like Gillard's claim, because no-one really believed Abbott in the first place.

cadbren wrote:
Or the green movement studies that "proove" this.

Yeah, because it's just a case of two political sides, each with scientific studies that are both equal.

fething reality fething matters.

Here's a thought, for all the countries that believe this, in fact for all the people that believe this, what physical steps have been taken to reduce emmissions? Now I realise a lot of rules have been passed and a lot of money has changed hands, but how much industrial output has actually been reduced in the face of this imminent threat we supposedly face?

Should recreational use of vehicles be banned as it's unnecesary use of fossil fuels plus the energies required to manufacture purpose built recreational vehicles such as RVs, 4wds, combustion engine powered boats, jetskis, private planes, trail bikes etc.

That's about the silliest slippery slope I've ever seen. And considering we're on dakka, that's saying a lot.

Given the zero impact on the environement these schemes have it makes sense for governments to stop hamstringing local industries and allowing them to use that money instead to fund R&D into more efficient systems.

How have you lived your entire life in a capitalist country without realising that when the price goes up people use less?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
I do take exception to (not that it has been said this thread) "the science is decided" as science is NEVER decided , is never finished, is never final, that's the best thing about science. My father is a chemist and every time he hears the phrase " the science is decided" he gets into a rage , I agree completely with the sentiment. There have been many many theories disproven over the years, and may there be many more.

Yes, but not really. I mean, yeah, Newton's theory of gravity was overturned by Einstein's relativity, but it didn't change the basic reality that objects fall towards the Earth at 9.8m/s. It's likely that we'll change and maybe even radically revise large portions of our understanding of climate over the next couple of decades, but that doesn't change the basic reality we have now established that the current amount of carbon released in to the atmosphere by humans is having a material impact on temperature.

My problem with the issue of climate change is this, climate is extremely complex involving many specialised disciplines , we do not know enough about the climate (just look at the short time we have been measuring the climate - 300 years is nothing) to categorically say that one thing is responsible for higher temperatures in the future.

Climate scientists disagree.

Climate scientist, anyone who calls themselves a climate scientist is a liar, there is no such thing as a climate scientist, as there are so many factors involved in climate that in order to become a climate scientist you would need to spend your whole career in university just to become qualified. Water currents, atmosphere, sun, wind, ,oceanography, geology, ice layers and add to that human influence of all those factors other than the sun and that's a hell of a lot of disciplines to cover.

Uh no. There's actually a really wide number of scientific fields that look at broad effects at the macro level. Population health, for instance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Indeed.

I think we may be responsible for speeding it up a little, but we didn't cause it. The earth is not a fragile little flower, it is rather robust.

The Earth is not a pretty little flower, but we are, and our economies certainly are. The Earth will respond to an increase in carbon in its atmosphere and chug along just fine with a few minor changes here or there. But for us people, clining to the surface of the Earth and trying to run massive civilisations through trade and industry... well those minor changes can screw things up for us big time. Change a weather pattern and well maybe you'll get just as much rain as you used to, but now it's 10' further south... meaning we have to relocate millions of acres of farmland, and all the roads and supporting infrastructure.

That's the basic reality of carbon emmission. It costs a lot less to reduce it than it does to adapt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
Firstly we were warned about global cooling, then when it was discovered that we weren't about to be plunged into the next ice age it was global warming.

A cover story on a Newsweek issue isn't science.

Climate change also means not having to address any significant global temperature rise in the last 20 years despite increased industrial activity, loss of forests and increased used of fossil fuels worldwide.

That's like arguing that falling from a plane doesn't have any negative impacts, because we haven't gone splat yet.

Anyhow, there was debate about climate modelling in the early 90s. That was a debate with lots of intelligent, honest people, with a wide variety of views. But ultimately the models that showed predictive power were the ones that included human carbon emissions leading to a spike in temperatures. Since then the debate has been between people who have adapted and improved those early models, and lying charlatans who invent stupid reasons for rejecting science with established predictive power (like the nonsense that Newsweek ran a silly story in the 1970s, therefore the whole field is bunk).

I would like to know why you think the climate is getting worse and why you think this change is due to industrial output.

Because most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reject the scientific consensus.

 sebster wrote:
Because most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reject the scientific consensus.

Has the scientific consensus indeed become that climate change occurs because of industrial output?

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Because most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reject the scientific consensus.

Has the scientific consensus indeed become that climate change occurs because of industrial output?

It may not be the only thing that causes climate change but there's tons of studies out there showing the effects that industrial output has on climate.

Including long-term trends?

 Seaward wrote:
Including long-term trends?

What do you mean by long-term? Like decades, hundreds of years, etc?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Including long-term trends?

What do you mean by long-term? Like decades, hundreds of years, etc?

Either, I suppose. I don't follow the climate change stuff. I don't much see the sense in worrying about gak that isn't going to be significant even after my great-grandchildren are dead, so I'm genuinely curious if science proved industrial output is responsible for long-term changes in what was already a non-static climate.

Ice cores, which trap air in tiny pockets and as such enable us to look back several hundred thousand years show that while the makeup of the atmosphere has changed in composition over the years, those changes tend to take tens of thousands of years. The changes we've seen in the past century due to fossil fuels and industrial output are basically doing in 100 years what scientific data suggests takes thousands to occur on its own.

So yes, unless we missed a huge volcano that's been erupting since the early 1900s, science is reasonably certain that it is industrial output causing a change in the makeup of our atmosphere and oceans.

 sebster wrote:

Should recreational use of vehicles be banned as it's unnecesary use of fossil fuels plus the energies required to manufacture purpose built recreational vehicles such as RVs, 4wds, combustion engine powered boats, jetskis, private planes, trail bikes etc.

That's about the silliest slippery slope I've ever seen.

You think it's silly to actually reduce the usage of non-essential fuel consumming devices given this 'global catastrophe' we're facing? I think you're arguing in favour of the green movement for the hell of it and that you haven't given any serious thought to the issue.

How have you lived your entire life in a capitalist country without realising that when the price goes up people use less?

What, like cars, electricity, insurance?
But are you really saying that you want to reduce industrial output and therefore reduce the amount of money availble to invest in future systems? If the prices go up too far then those industries shift to a country where it's cheaper to manufacture resulting in lost jobs locally, which is what I said.

Climate scientists disagree.

Yes they do.

Change a weather pattern and well maybe you'll get just as much rain as you used to, but now it's 10' further south... meaning we have to relocate millions of acres of farmland, and all the roads and supporting infrastructure.

This is what is at issue, they're trying to prevent the natural cycle for commercial reasons. It's doomed to failure

A cover story on a Newsweek issue isn't science.

No it isn't, what's your point?

Climate change also means not having to address any significant global temperature rise in the last 20 years despite increased industrial activity, loss of forests and increased used of fossil fuels worldwide.

That's like arguing that falling from a plane doesn't have any negative impacts, because we haven't gone splat yet.

No, that's called panic mongering, there is no evidence that our civilisation is going to go "splat" due to climate change. Again, what are the figures of this decline, where is the proof, it's a theory, a rather vague one at that.

Since then the debate has been between people who have adapted and improved those early models, and lying charlatans who invent stupid reasons for rejecting science with established predictive power.

I assume this is what qualifies as reasoned arguement from where you come from but all it is is derisory hyperbole. If the "predictive power" of this science is so great then how about some actual predictions that can be followed, verified. I was taught the dangers of global warming when I was in school, the rising temperatures, the rising sea levels, it hasn't happened and they've been claiming this stuff for decades, there should be obvious figures by now, there aren't, so they've stopped calling if warming and gone with change.

I would like to know why you think the climate is getting worse and why you think this change is due to industrial output.

Because most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reject the scientific consensus.

There is no consensus so why are you supporting this so aggressively?

You also ignored my question about industrial output.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Because most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reject the scientific consensus.

Has the scientific consensus indeed become that climate change occurs because of industrial output?

It may not be the only thing that causes climate change but there's tons of studies out there showing the effects that industrial output has on climate.

That "consensus" is a fething joke, and I want citation for your bs 97% claim.

 Cheesecat wrote:


That's not entirely true Kyoto was successful with some countries.

Kronk is sometimes smart, but sometimes Kronk needs a hand.

Is a negative number good? If your green number is more negative than your red number, is that good?

Kronk is confused.

 djones520 wrote:

That "consensus" is a fething joke, and I want citation for your bs 97% claim.

Deniers want the consensus to be a joke, but it is neither that nor bs.

So here you go:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

And here's a pretty good and more readable overview of the studies: http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/928.asp

 djones520 wrote:
That "consensus" is a fething joke, and I want citation for your bs 97% claim.

He won't be able to. The oft-cited 97% number has been debunked a number of times.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Deniers want the consensus to be a joke, but it is neither that nor bs.

And alarmists want to conjure images of holocaust deniers whenever they use that word.


Climate change exists. It always has. It always will. The only real question is how much we contribute to it (our carbon dioxide output is dwarfed by the natural sources of this gas), and whether such change is actually a bad thing (especially when you consider some hotter climates bring about greater crop yields). And I can tell you that Australia contributes next to nothing, making any sort of Carbon Tax a complete waste of time. We need rid of it. Fast.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
That "consensus" is a fething joke, and I want citation for your bs 97% claim.

He won't be able to. The oft-cited 97% number has been debunked a number of times.

 DogofWar1 wrote:
Deniers want the consensus to be a joke, but it is neither that nor bs.

And alarmists what to conjure images of holocaust deniers whenever they use that word.

Considering how often folks like me have been likened to "Nazi's", I'd say your dead on with the denier part.

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Because most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reject the scientific consensus.

Has the scientific consensus indeed become that climate change occurs because of industrial output?

It may not be the only thing that causes climate change but there's tons of studies out there showing the effects that industrial output has on climate.

That "consensus" is a fething joke, and I want citation for your bs 97% claim.

I quite enjoy the fact that his argument is several paragraphs, and your's is you cursing at him.

Are...are you serious right now!?

Are you guys seriously trying to derail the conversation by saying you're victims of being called Nazis for your stance on climate change?

How about instead, responding to the studies I posted? You asked for information concerning the views of scientists on the issue of climate change, and there it is.

It's especially funny, H.M.B.C., how you managed to, in a single post, say that information concerning a consensus wouldn't be forthcoming, and then respond to the one part of my post that doesn't include information concerning said consensus. Nice job.

Climate change exists. It always has. It always will. The only real question is how much we contribute to it (our carbon dioxide output is dwarfed by the natural sources of this gas), and whether such change is actually a bad thing (especially when you consider some hotter climates bring about greater crop yields). And I can tell you that Australia contributes next to nothing, making any sort of Carbon Tax a complete waste of time. We need rid of it. Fast.

Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere#Past_variation

At no point in the past 400,000 years has CO2 ppm gone substantially beyond 300 ppm, if it even got to that level at all. Today, we're rapidly approaching 400 ppm. Ice cores taken from just before the industrial revolution show PPM at around 280 ppm. A 120 ppm increase in less than 200 years is unprecedented, and doubly so when you consider that it hasn't cracked 300 ppm in the past 400,000 years.

What's different?

Us.

As for if climate change could be beneficial: http://www.wunderground.com/climate/facts/negative_impacts.asp?MR=1

Flip over to "Intermediate" to see side by side comparisons of positive outcomes and negative outcomes, with links to studies. There are some possible positive effects, but many more possible negative effects.

 Seaward wrote:
Has the scientific consensus indeed become that climate change occurs because of industrial output?

There is scientific consensus that carbon emissions from human industry are driving a constant increase in global temperature that underlies other cyclical climate patterns, yes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Either, I suppose. I don't follow the climate change stuff. I don't much see the sense in worrying about gak that isn't going to be significant even after my great-grandchildren are dead, so I'm genuinely curious if science proved industrial output is responsible for long-term changes in what was already a non-static climate.

There will be a considerable increase in average temperatures by 2050, which is within the lifetimes of most people who post on dakka.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

cadbren wrote:
You think it's silly to actually reduce the usage of non-essential fuel consumming devices given this 'global catastrophe' we're facing?

I think it's silly to talk wildly about extreme, unecessary steps when there's countless minor, cheap and non-intrusive steps that people are refusing to consider.

I think you're arguing in favour of the green movement for the hell of it and that you haven't given any serious thought to the issue.

I'm actually quite contemptuous of much of the green movement, who frequently rely too heavily on emotive arguments and impractical 'solutions'.

I am, however, a big fan of the collection of human knowledge gained through empirical research that we call 'science', and believe that when a field of human study comes to a clear conclusion, we should respect that conclusion.

What, like cars, electricity, insurance? But are you really saying that you want to reduce industrial output and therefore reduce the amount of money availble to invest in future systems?

Yes, goods and services would become slightly more expensive. That's happening already, with the rising price of fuels - and we all deal with it.

If the prices go up too far then those industries shift to a country where it's cheaper to manufacture resulting in lost jobs locally, which is what I said.

The price effect of carbon neutral industry is not cheap, but nor is it that expensive. The estimated cost to GDP of worldwide carbon neutrality is 3 to 5%. Now that will have an impact on marginal industries, but the claims of total collapse are just scaremongering. Right now Australia is dealing with a dollar that's inflated about parity by close to 50%... and that causes trouble for marginal industries, but it hasn't killed it, and it certainly hasn't led Australia to consider abandoning the free floating dollar.

And yet any talk about a price on carbon is talked about in apocalyptic terms. Madness.

This is what is at issue, they're trying to prevent the natural cycle for commercial reasons. It's doomed to failure

It's not a natural cycle. It's a change in cycle due to human activity.

No it isn't, what's your point?

That the people who pretend global warming isn't a thing do so in large part through silly non-arguments, such as pretending that a few popular news stories spun out of theories proposed by climate science 40 years ago in the absolute infancy of the field are somehow equal in scientific rigour to the theories produced now by thousands of researchers working with established models with proven predictive power.

No, that's called panic mongering, there is no evidence that our civilisation is going to go "splat" due to climate change.

You don't understand how analogies work. The human falling out of the plane goes splat, the planet slowly heating merely has a consequence not yet suffered, which by no means has to be as extreme as the splat. And given I had laid out the case for climate change as an on-going economic cost and not an apocalypse, this should have been an obvious thing for you to realise.

Again, what are the figures of this decline, where is the proof, it's a theory, a rather vague one at that.

It is not vague, and you don't understand what a theory is. You don't get to reject science when you don't understand how it works.

I assume this is what qualifies as reasoned arguement from where you come from but all it is is derisory hyperbole. If the "predictive power" of this science is so great then how about some actual predictions that can be followed, verified. I was taught the dangers of global warming when I was in school, the rising temperatures, the rising sea levels, it hasn't happened and they've been claiming this stuff for decades, there should be obvious figures by now, there aren't, so they've stopped calling if warming and gone with change.

You're confusing 'what you were taught in high school' with 'climate science as understood by climate scientists'.

There is no consensus so why are you supporting this so aggressively?

There is, you don't know what you're talking about.

You also ignored my question about industrial output.

I thought I answered the whole lot, please refresh my memory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
That "consensus" is a fething joke, and I want citation for your bs 97% claim.

So are we just ignoring NASA now?

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus#ft1

NASA is infallible? Hardly.

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/1400/20130416/nasa-duping-washington-regards-global-warming.htm

The UN has been shown to be wrong.

http://junkscience.com/2013/09/19/ipccs-own-graph-shows-climate-models-embarrassingly-wrong/

Hell, people admitting they were wrong just seems to be the vogue thing nowadays.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10310712/Top-climate-scientists-admit-global-warming-forecasts-were-wrong.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Because most of us aren't stupid or arrogant enough to reject the scientific consensus.

Has the scientific consensus indeed become that climate change occurs because of industrial output?

It may not be the only thing that causes climate change but there's tons of studies out there showing the effects that industrial output has on climate.

That "consensus" is a fething joke, and I want citation for your bs 97% claim.

I quite enjoy the fact that his argument is several paragraphs, and your's is you cursing at him.

Sometimes saying less is better.