http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... te-change/
I've had numerous arguments with my dad (who works in the coal industry) about this. But picking little snippets of data from denialist blogs in an attempt to create doubt is not science.
We are affecting the planet's climate. For chrissakes, deal with it.
Could you explain the reasoning behind choosing this option? Because to me, that point is redundant. Everyone knows that climate changes naturally, has done so throughout history, and will continue to do so. There are just too many varying factors and feedback effects affecting climate for it to be stable.Alan C. wrote:I didn't vote because I think it's part of a natural cycle, but I also think we are bringing it on quicker/earlier than it should be.
Thus, if we are bringing climate change around quicker than it ought to, then warming is by definition anthropogenic. Why did you need that qualifier?
I think the climate change that would occur over a period of about 100,000 years, and maybe give all forms of life on earth time to adapt, has been accelerated so as to come about, over a period of about 10,000 years, thus not giving evolution enough time to cope with the changes.
This is a good lecture on the subject, from TED talks, I8 minutes long.
It only lasts 16 minutes, Environmental scientist David Keith talks about a cheap, effective, shocking solution to climate change:
To digress a bit though, I find the taking of polls on subjects such as this has little value because the majority of the public are not sufficently well informed to make a value judgement. Taking a democratic vote on a scientific subject will merely reflect the level to which populist mis/disinformation has permeated the public consciousness.
Virtually on a daily basis we read demands for a referendum on this or a referendum on that from political opposition parties because they know that the media will always back their calls because it makes good tabloid press.
There seems to be a climate(I use the word advisedly) of 'Don't trust the experts' being sponsored by the media yet if you look seriously, the experts' opinion is normally mainstream scientific opinion which has been validated by peer review and nearly always turns out to be right. The occasional exceptions get blazing headlines which in turn plays into the hands of the doubters.
A question to ask when a dissenting voice is heard, at odds with mainstream opinion, is 'cui bono?' (who gains?) and to return to the original topic, in this case the hydrocarbon fuel industry and its poodle in the White House, closely followed by the developing economies of China and India. No wonder the media are seeded with contra global warming propaganda.
Yes, and as someone said recently, science itself is not democratic.Phaedo wrote:Taking a democratic vote on a scientific subject will merely reflect the level to which populist mis/disinformation has permeated the public consciousness.
The (usually ignorant) media seem to assume that because there might be two differing opinions on any subject that the probability of each being correct is 50%. All the media are after is confrontation - they rarely seem interested in consensus.There seems to be a climate(I use the word advisedly) of 'Don't trust the experts' being sponsored by the media yet if you look seriously, the experts' opinion is normally mainstream scientific opinion which has been validated by peer review and nearly always turns out to be right. The occasional exceptions get blazing headlines which in turn plays into the hands of the doubters.
EmmaThe survey was carried out by the polling organisation ComRes for the Local Government Association (LGA). It wrote to MPs and asked: "Do you believe that climate change is happening and can be directly attributed to greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity?"
Of the 55 Conservative MPs who replied, 10 said no, while eight that they didn't know. Some 80 of the 91 Labour MPs who responded said yes, together with 15 of the 17 Liberal Democrats. Overall, 168 MPs replied to the poll, 32 of whom answered no or don't know.
Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, said the survey results were "disturbing". He said: "That a fifth of MPs say they either don't know or reject the science of climate change is a serious cause for alarm and suggests that many of them are seriously out of touch, because the science is very clear.
Sorry to go off topic, but it's not only climate change that they are out of touch on, they have made a very big deal today, about postponing the 2p rise in fuel tax that was due to be implemented in October.That a fifth of MPs say they either don't know or reject the science of climate change is a serious cause for alarm and suggests that many of them are seriously out of touch,
The government is raking in £millions in extra revenue due to the high price of oil (via the tax system) this 2p rise would have been a drop in the ocean in comparison, by saying they will now postpone it, I think amounts to taking the piss! The tax on fuel should be adjusted on a monthly basis, so that the exchequer gets more or less the same income from fuel tax regardless of the price of oil, I don't know how clear (or not, I've made that)
When the price of fuel is high, the chancelor could reduce the percentage of tax and still get the same return, if the price goes down he could then increase the tax and so keep the the same level of income, it's not difficult!
This coming winter it's going to cost us around £100 a week just to heat the house and provide hot water, due to the ridiculous price of heating oil which has just gone through the roof, if diesel had increased at the same rate as heatng oil over the last 12 months, I would now be paying around £7 a litre to run my car! Diesel here is now £1.48.9 a litre...............Yes I am angry!