There does seem to have been a very substantial backlash against global warming theories in the last year or so.
(a) I don't know who's right, I'm not a scientist and I haven't read a great deal about the subject. (b) But I'm not convinced by the "humans haven't been here for long so we can't have done any damage" argument. (c) Before us, there wasn't anyone exploiting the planet's resources and pumping pollutants into the atmosphere. We've only been using coal, oil and gas for a few hundred years but we've used it on an enormous scale.
(d) I'm just worried that if climate change scepticism becomes the default position, it'll give the big-scale polluters licence to carry on regardless. We may all be doomed, but why speed it up?
(a) i don't know who's right, for 100% certain, either, but I'm going with the scientists. I find it hilarious how oil company apologists (not saying anyone here is one; i'm saying the guys muddying the waters and manufacturing doubt are) point out how biased scientists are, while blatantly ignoring how the oil companies etc. are about a million times more biased, and have much more to gain (last time i checked in science, if you blow the existing theories out of the water with kickass research, you won't get ostracised, you'll win the nobel prize).
(b) agreed. plus the "oh, there are natural cycles" (which, might i add, no scientists are suggesting there aren't) is a specious argument, of course there are natural cycles, but just because there are doesn't mean we can't be influencing things, too.
(c) actually, that's not true. The reason the atmosphere is ~20% oxygen is plants. :D But i agree that we're producing stuff which the earth was never exposed to before (or else in very small quantities).
(d) exactly.
I always amused by people with no scientific background that are positive enough that humans are having zero effect on the climate to active laugh at and slate people who think otherwise. Course, there's really nothing to gain for anybody saying it's true if it is, but lots and lots to gain for the people saying (or funding) those who claim it's false. I don't know why any government.
i wouldn't say there's no reason to claim global warming is happening when it's not (plenty of companies are jumping on the bandwagon), but there are an awful lot more financial reasons to claim it's not, if you ask me.
There was a great Doc on telly a few weeks back presented by Tony Robinson on this subject. They were saying the climate heats up and cools down in cycles and always has based on their scientist findings, When the climate shifted hot or cold it lasted for thousands of years and the shift would take a decade.
I remember the extra taxes put on air travel a few years ago which were necessary "because of global warming" It was only here that these taxes were imposed. That just said it all to me that its just another way for this clown of a PM to raise even more money. So it would be the gain of the government wouldn't it. They have Ads on tv right now spreading this propaganda.
Thousands of years before we were driving cars the earth was pumping huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere with volcanos so the worlds been "polluted' ever since, ever since. And I'm no Magnus Pike!
Edit another theory for why it could be happening is elliptical orbits of the sun.
i don't trust tv docs.
of course there have always been volcanoes. I think the climate change scientists might be aware of the existence of volcanoes, just a thought.
your last point about the taxes etc. i'd agree with. But that's disagreeing with how to fight global warming/climate change (which i also disagree with, as do most of the climate change scientists, ironically enough), not disagreeing with whether or not it's happening.
i'm also assuming the scientists are aware of the earth's orbit around the sun.
The thing that gets me is, 'they' say if there's no change in carbon emission policy, there will be at least a 2 degree change in temperature which will produce massive worldwide climate change. The Met Office said we would have a mild Winter, it's the coldest Winter since 1981. They said is would be a barbecue-Summer, it wasn't. How can they tell what the temperature change will be over the next 50-100 years and can't tell what the weather will be like in a months time (and I've not talking specific temperature, just general conditions). IMO anyone predicting what the temperature will be in 100 years, is taking a massive punt. For me it would be like trying to predict the stock market value in 2110 :?
I suspect the climate models that scientists use aren't as accurate as they would like us to believe. However I also believe that a little 'Green' in our lives won't do us any harm :)
i imagine it's easier to predict the climate than it is to predict our weather.
badass picture, too. :)
