Guess who just won the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Kilarney]

The fundamental problem I have with Al Gore is that he does not practice what he preaches. His monthly electric bill is something like $1,200. He counters that he buys carbon offsets. This is meaningless to me. That's just a way for the rich to feel good without changing their lifestyle at all. In other words, let the poor suffer. I want my air conditioning.

While I believe in global warming, I do have a problem insomuch as global warming proponents have turned the debate into a moral crusade. This does not make for good science. There ought to be room for criticism and discussion without wielding th hammer of morality. It may be a moral issue, but the science should be separate from this.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Kilarney

While I believe in global warming, I do have a problem insomuch as global warming proponents have turned the debate into a moral crusade. This does not make for good science. There ought to be room for criticism and discussion without wielding th hammer of morality. It may be a moral issue, but the science should be separate from this.

Here, here! Well said indeed.

[HappyMartin]

Originally Posted by NatCh

let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion?

OK, I don't take it badly, I think you make a point.

I have no expertise regards climate change at all. I think that I am still entitled to an opinion since I live here. My concern is this. If I saw a canister of sludge glowing gently to its self (as it were) I would treat it with caution and assume a health risk until convinced otherwise by some pretty solid evidence. The consequences of climate change are so potentially devastating that I tend to be conservative about it. I think it is needlessly risky to just carry on as usual until it can be proven beyond all doubt. I will not, to put it another way, run naked through the Kruger National Park because I have not seen the lions teeth with my own eyes. I don't require global warming to be proven beyond all doubt, I require its absence to be proven beyond all doubt.

I shoot a lot of landscape images and often return to areas many times. I see changes. You do not have to be an expert to notice that the planet is starting to look like it has been taken care of by a pack of angry trolls.

[HarryT]

Hi Nat,

One of my friends is an expert in atmospheric physics, and he tells me that all the big computer models which have been developed to do long term modelling of the behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere show long-term warming trends. The only way in which the different models differ is how much warming there will be over the next century. Even a rise of a few degrees C could lead to radical spreads of desert areas, migration of huge numbers of people, war, etc.

It's absolutely a political issue and needs to be addressed by politicians - based on the best possible information from scientists, of course.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

I have no expertise regards climate change at all. I think that I am still entitled to an opinion since I live here

You do not have to be an expert to notice that the planet is starting to look like it has been taken care of by a pack of angry trolls.

You make an excellent point too, HappyMartin, and I agree that being conservative about natural resources is just good stewardship (I was a Boy Scout after all ). It just seems to me that the scientific evidence is still coming in, and we should let it do so before we do things that might totally cripple our civilization -- particularly when there's an excellent chance that we might do things that make whatever the situation really is worse! (as has happened before with other things)

I also think I was probably not as clear as I might have been about what I was getting at. I'm not trying to discount the opinions of everyone but experts, not at all. I just like to have an idea of how informed and considered a given opinion is as I consider it, that's all.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, however they form it. However I'm not obligated to listen to every person's opinion, nor to give a crack-head's opinion the weight I would an expert in whatever matter. I like to give informed, considered opinions a bit more weight than that of, say ... some Hollywood celebrity that can't seem to stay sober long enough to check out of rehab (increasingly I feel only pity for the entire Hollywood establishment), or even that of the "average guy" who is just going by what they've read in the headlines, or (shudder) the New York Times.

Your own "non-expert" opinion, for instance, sounds relatively informed by your direct observations, and your presentation of it suggests that it's fairly considered too. I do realize that it's necessarily fairly limited in scope because you can't go around carefully observing the whole world because you have to find a way to feed yourself.


I also don't mean to suggest we should wait for scientific certainty -- there's not likely to be any such thing on this matter for a long, long time.

I just see that the "majority" of scientific opinion that has weighed in already contains the same folks that were saying thirty years ago that we were headed for an ice age -- I can't help it, that makes me a bit skeptical.

The "minority" scientific opinion (a growing minority, nearly as I can tell) on the other side of the issue hasn't been studying the matter for that long, and it takes time to gather genuine scientific grade evidence. I'd just like to see what they come up with before we make any civilization crippling moves, that's all.

[yvanleterrible]

I liked agent Smith's comment in 'The Matrix' when he had ...(the name eludes me right now) tied to a chair and willlessly listening.
"Humanity is a virus!"

That brings me to an image of global warming being Earth's fever eradicating a virus.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One of my friends is an expert in atmospheric physics, and he tells me that all the big computer models which have been developed to do long term modelling of the behaviour of the Earth's atmosphere show long-term warming trends. The only way in which the different models differ is how much warming there will be over the next century. Even a rise of a few degrees C could lead to radical spreads of desert areas, migration of huge numbers of people, war, etc.

My reservations about the present models is that the information is necessarily not complete, owing to the lack of complete historical records before a certain point. Plus the ones I've heard about (no direct knowledge here) seem to start their trends from the end of the last mini ice-age that was induced by (I think) Krakatoa's eruption, which seems to me might just skew things a bit, and I've yet to hear anyone claiming to have compensated for that -- but again, it's not my area at all.

I suppose if things get too warm, we could just get a really big volcanic eruption to settle them down.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

I liked agent Smith's comment in 'The Matrix' when he had ...(the name eludes me right now) tied to a chair and willlessly listening.
"Humanity is a virus!"

That brings me to an image of global warming being Earth's fever eradicating a virus.

Morpheus, if I recall correctly. That was a good scene.

[yvanleterrible]

Anyone read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crighton?

That's the denial side of the medal. There is a huge appendix in the book with interesting references.

Good read whatever one thinks.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I'd just like to see what they come up with before we make any civilization crippling moves, that's all.

But you don't have to cripple anyone to do it, Nat.

The UK has more than met its Kyoto treaty obligations of lowering CO2 emissions to below their 1990 levels, and we've done it without crippling our economy. In fact, the UK is the only one of the "G8" nations which has not suffered an economic recession in the last decade.

All it takes is the political will, and a government which doesn't have its economic policy swayed unduly by industry "lobby groups".

You need to get tough, though. We pay the equivalent of about US$8 per US gallon for petrol (gas), even though the UK is a major oil producer. That's a deliberate government policy to "encourage" people to buy "greener" cars which use less fuel and emit less CO2, and is something backed by all political parties here. People who drive what you call "SUV"s are treated virtually like "lepers" in the UK these days for their lack of "environmental awareness".

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But you don't have to cripple anyone to do it, Nat.

Oh, I agree with you there, HarryT. No question. But there are elements in the debate who believe that you do, and they tend to be vocal in ways that get politicians' attention.

[emkay]

Originally Posted by NatCh

So, speaking as the guy who weighed in above with the position that we don't yet know enough to be speaking authoritatively, let me ask -- and I really do mean this as a sincere request, not a dig or cheap shot -- let me ask what expertise you bring to the discussion? I like to know that sort of thing when I'm considering folks comments, you see, and since this is an area where I admit a fairly complete ignorance, I have no personal expertise within which to consider your comments.

Well, I'm not a climate scientist, and have made no claims to be one. The point I make is that I defer to the (overwhelming) scientific consensus on the issue. If you take an interest in the subject and look at *disinterested* scientific findings on climate change, the picture is very clear.

A couple of examples:
The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (And that's 3 years old)
UK Govt's summary of the IPCC 2007 report

My own expertise is limited to having followed the issue for a number of years, reading books, attending conferences, and so on. It's something I feel strongly about, so I take an active interest. The Robert Henson book, Rough Guide to Climate Change, gives a really good explanation of the science.
Unfortunately there has been a lot of misinformation systematically spread over recent years by interested parties who wish to preserve the status quo.
This site is good at debunking some of these. See also George Monbiot's book, Heat.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by emkay

Well, I'm not a climate scientist, and have made no claims to be one.

My own expertise is limited to having followed the issue for a number of years, reading books, attending conferences, and so on. It's something I feel strongly about, so I take an active interest.

Thanks, that gives me a good idea where you're speaking from.

As someone who has evidently followed the topic closely for some time, I wonder if it seems to you that the minority opposing opinion seems to be growing in scientific circles or not? The impression I have is that it is, though that growth is not getting much attention. But having followed the matter, I expect you'd have a better feel for that question than I have myself.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NatCh

As someone who has evidently followed the topic closely for some time, I wonder if it seems to you that the minority opposing opinion seems to be growing in scientific circles or not?

Speaking as a scientist (although not an atmospheric physicist) and someone who has kept up with the debate, my view is definitely not. What has happened is that a number of popular pseudo-scientists (eg Michael Crichton) have been very vocal in spreading their misinformation through the popular media.

Keep up with "real" science through publications like New Scientist or Scientific American and you'll get the real information, which is now overwhelmingly that Global Warming is a real effect which is being heavily influenced (although perhaps not caused) by the greenhouse gas emissions of modern society.

We have a lot more data on historical climate change than you may perhaps be aware of. Dendrochronology (the study of tree rings) gives us a continuous record of climate (at least in western Europe) for around 7,000 years, and the study of ice cores from places like the Greenland ice caps can give us rainfall information, and let us analyze the composition of the atmosphere, going back at least 100,000 years.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Here's another way to look at the situation:

It may be uncertain how much Global Warming has been caused by Man's activities (and this, of course, is the major argument people bring against Gore's statements). What is not in doubt, however, is the demonstrable results, which have already begun to eradicate farmable land, decimate foodstock from the land and seas, raise sea levels with the eventual result that billions of people will lose their homes, and damage the atmosphere to the point of losing needed UV protection.

We should continue to debate what caused it, or who's at fault... that knowledge will help us to slow or halt the process... but that's not what we need to be concentrating on right now. We need to be dedicating ourselves to reversing the process, using the tools we've developed by studying the problem, before this world cannot sustain the 6.5 billion people on it.

Or, we can do nothing, and let the planet deal with our overpopulation problem in its own way. As George Carlin once pointed out: "The planet is fine. It's the people that are f***ed!"