To think that we are all in denial about climate change?

[toptramp]

What's all this David Attenborough backlash about? On last week's frozen plant there was clear footage of ice breaking up. Ok- that alone can't proove that man is causing climate change but he is right imo.

It's not the fault of the polar bears or teh penguins or freak weather systems but it is man that is causeing much of the damage. Man and our pollution. I was just reading the Telegraph today and in the artice 'Attenborough stumble on melting ice' Charle's Moor writes about the last frozen planet "Beyond a vaguely uneasy feeling that climate change around the poles might be important and dangerous the programme had no message" Really? I thought the programme had a very clear message "stop burning fossil fuels" being one of them.

The problem is we don't like to admit that we might be the problem here as that would involve big changes and we don't like big changes. I just don't understand why some people can't admit taht yes man is soiling his own nest and therefore lets do something about it; lets make changes. I will be very sad when (and not if) polar bears go extinct.

[AlpinePony]

Yabu, we're coming out of an ice-age. Driving a prius and carrying a reusable bag won't stop that.

[DartsAgain]

I'm not convinced the science has been settled at all.

I came across a recent piece of research which has been given no airing by the media at all (I'll see if I can find it again).

This research showed that industrialised countries absorb CO2 and developing countries transmit CO2. The researchers hadn't got to the bottom of why this is, but it is interesting nevertheless.

I know the climate is changing, it has been doing this since the planet formed. I am not convinced human activity is behind the current changes, and I find it interesting that the Russians have taken the same climate data and have decided it means we are heading into a period of cooling not warming.

[LaurieFairyCake]

Global warming doesn't mean warming - it can also mean cooling for here (if the gulf stream reverses).

[BoulevardOfBrokenSleep]

By way of comparison, the 'medieval warm period' was about the same temperature as today; the 'little ice age' was about one degree cooler. The cycle between the two took around 700 years.

The most recent data shows us on course for a six degree rise by the end of this century.

Can no-one see how that is different?

[elastamum]

Someblokes post may be unpopular and may or may not be correct, but it is very eloquently put.

It would be helpful to the debate for those on the both sides of the fence to put their side of the argument and then maybe we can have a reasoned debate on the issue.

We do ourselves no favours by dismissing views we dont like as bollocks and saying there is no place for doubters. It is arrogant in the extreme. I believe this is one of the reasons climate change theory is being rejected by many moderates.

Quite honestly, it gets my goat. David Attenboroughs film was a gross oversimplification of what is happening at the Antartic, which he alluded to in the interview on the BBC on Sunday morning.

The BBC / Al Gore position seems to be that the public are too stupid to consider all the theories as theories, so need to be spoon fed alarmist messages to get them to act.

IMO the world is warming (possibly to 2 degrees above what it would otherwise be), CO2 may be a factor and man might be a major contributor to this. We dont know what the long term effects may be because we dont have a full understanding of climate, independant of our effect on this.

We should do what we can to conserve our planet. This should really include nuclear power and GM crops so we can power and feed the world population (bet you dont like the last bit).

[Civilon]

Is all this because nobody knows who to trust as an information source any more?

[somebloke123]

Mon cher Monsieur Boulevardier,

If the number of times you say bollocks defined the weight of the argument then your post would be quite convincing.

I don't see the relevance of your 2nd paragraph. Warmer temperatures (obviously within limits) tend to lead to greater prosperity. Examples are the flourishing of the Vikings in northern Europe during the medieval warming, and the establishment of settlements in Greenland in locations which would not be feasible today. Cooler temperatures adversely affect plant growth and often lead to malnourishment, famine and plague. Without suggesting that their is a simple causal link, examples might be the Black death, which occurred in the 14th century, in the quite sudden period of climate change which marked the transition from the end of the Medieval Warming Period to the start of the Little Ice Age; also the Great Plague of the late 17th century, which occurred during the Maunder sunspot minimum.

During the last ice age some hominid species were wiped out and homo sapiens almost was.

Third paragraph. You didn't read my post. I didn't say that all the extra CO2 was absorbed by plants. What I said, and this is verified by laboratory experiments, is that higher CO2 concentrations stimulate plant growth. This is presumably why intensive commercial greenhouses have extra CO2 inserted into them far in excess of atmospheric concentrations.

In the 19th century the astronomer William Herschel discovered an anticorrelation between the number of sunspots and the price of grain. When there are more sunspots the Sun is more active and the solari wind is stronger, which is able to blow away and shield us from a fair number of cosmic rays which may be a mechanism for seeding clouds.

Cordialement ..

[Civilon]

I do think cynicism about what scientists and governments say is quite healthy.

But on this issue it seems a bit...weird.

[IneedAChristmasNickname]

Is all this because nobody knows who to trust as an information source any more?
Probably! I have no idea what I should, or shouldn't be doing to help 'save the planet'.
Who can explain in laymans terms :)

[toptramp]

Hi all. Thanks for the good points. I realise that melting glaciers is not the main point but what I think annoys me about the whole thing is the huge amount of defensiveness about environmental issues and how many journalists encourage the head in sand appproach by making out that environmentalists are somehow hysterical.

I think it is just common sense to look after the plant. Ok - we are a blip and I don't think we will be here forever but whilst we are here is it not best to look after it?

I think it is bit late for all that now anyway which accounts for mass apathy.

[Shallishanti]

the messages about climate change are not alarmist they are alarming, and the vast weight of scientific opinion is in broad agreement- better not to think of 'global warming' but climate change, which will mean different things in different places- it's not just about polar bears (though they are important) but millions of people eg in low lying coastal areas who will lose their homes and/or livlihoods and the consequent conflict, migration, war....

of course recycling carrier bags is trivial compared to the size of the problem but unless ordinary people in the so-called democracies show that they are willing to accept personal changes then governments will drag their feet and a 4 degree change becomes inevitable

we can't just say oh it's all china's fault- we are exporting our emissions to China by buying what they produce rather than having our own industry and our own emmissions- look around your houses people!

[LaurieFairyCake]

There are no proper scientists who don't believe in climate change and it's catastrophic effects. The scientific community is almost entirely cohesive on this.

Yes, of course we need gm crops and plenty more nuclear fuel but we need to be a lot better at getting rid of nuclear waste.

And we can run cars on completely clean 'fuel' but it is not in governments or the middle easts interest to do so until fossil fuels run out. It makes people rich so it will be kept expensive.

Not sure what the problem is with wind and solar power? They seem like great solutions to me.

[somebloke123]

The most recent data shows us on course for a six degree rise by the end > of this century

Sorry this won't do. Data is (are?) data. They are what is observed. They don't "show us as on course" for anything.

What you are referring to are the extrapolated predictions of computer models into which various positive feedback mechanisms have been hypothesised together with a combination of worst case scenarios.

Remember Mann's hockey stick? Going into the 21st century we were supposed to be getting hit by a massive upturn in temperatures. There has been no such increasing trend on average over the last 15 years. So the models were unsuccessful in predicting global temperatures a few years in advance. How do you you reckon they will perform for predictions 100 years into the future?

[Shallishanti]

I think what we can do as individuals is cultivate a sense of what the carbon 'cost' of our everyday lives are (a good book is 'how bad are bananas') and act accordingly- and recalibrate what we want from life- more stuff all the time, and flying half way across the world on a regular basis,
or, a satisfying comfortable llifestyle where long distance travel is a treat, and we buy/make things that will last....and be aware how incredibly 'priveleged' we are...if 'priveleged'='consuming far more than our fair share of the earth's resources and doing far more damage than most of it's human inhabitants'

[somebloke123]

There are no proper scientists who don't believe in climate change and it's > catastrophic effects.

Aha - the good old "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

[MainlyMaynie]

Everytime I have seen climate change discussed on any female dominated website, there has been at least one very long post from a man explaining The Science to The Girls. Just some observed data.

[Shallishanti]

however, amicissima, 'It may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards'

MM

[batsintheroof]

someblock

"Sorry this won't do. Data is (are?) data."

You are clearly NOT a scientist then. Non-scientists should stop writing bollocks as fact.

Listen to scientists- don't listen to the daily mail, or any some bloke that comes on an internet forum completely anonymously writes absolute shit.

[batsintheroof]

amicissima They are a drop in the ocean.

[retiredgoth2]

We all find pleasure somewhere.

For some, tis the song of the lark.

For others, the sturm und drang of Beethoven, or the sweet melancholia of Nick Drake.

For others still, tis the plaintive wail of joyless preaching.

I rejoice in the pleasures of all.

[aldiwhore]

Maybe I'm wrong in thinking that perhaps we don't really need 7 billion bloody people on the planet.

Its a separate argument/issue... climate change or not, we ARE overpopulated and need to get our thinking caps on as regards how we can feed everyone, we're not doing too well at present, but that's naff all to do with melting ice cubes (albiet big ones).

Solar power simply isn't good enough (yet) to even making a dent in what we need. Maybe it will be in x numbers of years, but right now its virtually useless, especially when windy.

Mass extinctions are probably nature's way of getting rid of dangerous parasites. So yes, we should probably be scared, but using a new kind of lightbulb won't make a difference.

We are not friendly parasites. We could be. But we probably never will be.

I think 'climate change' and 'the problem with people' are two separate issues.