Society/Culture Climate Change put on hold for a few decades

[medusala]

I think with most science policy decisions you just need to follow the dollars to see the rationale behind it all.

Alarmists love to bang on about cigarette smoking but conveniently ignore the myriad of other scares we have been subject to by the government which amounted to very little.

 

[bit_pattern]

Most. *ed. Logic. Evah!

As much as I'd love for climate change to be some money making scare campaign cooked up by the global elite (lol, man you guys are numpty's ), unfortunately, we can see it happening now before out very eyes

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Physical-realities-of-global-warming.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/2009-2nd-hottest-year-on-record-sun-coolest-in-a-century.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Comparing-IPCC-projections-to-observations.html

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-global-warming-is-still-happening.html

As for pandemics, while we might have dodged a bullet on swine flu the fact is that a high mortality, fast spreading influenza pandemic is still a very real risk and I for one am happy that the worlds health bodies are paying attention and have now built a response framework for dealing with any future pandemic.

I bet that if there was a global pandemic of dvestating proportions you saps would be the first to whinge that things weren't being done quick enough

 

[cancat]

As much as I'd love for climate change to be some money making scare campaign cooked up by the global elite

No campaign by an elite is necessary. If enough people are making $$$ from a particular viewpoint it will sway the direction of research. The global warming campaign also has a whole load of environmental guilt driving it too.

It seems like it is part of human nature to feel guilt about something. If you don't have religious guilt then you can feel guilt about your 'impact on the environment'. Don't worry there are plenty of people willing to accept your money to help you feel better about it.

 

[bit_pattern]

Yeah, they're called oil companies. If you want to "follow the money" then look no further to last years Fortune 500 list

 

[cancat]

We also have 'carbon crime' now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...-trading-fraudsters-in-Europe-pocket-5bn.html

 

[bit_pattern]

[youtube]yDTUuckNHgc[/youtube]

 

[Chief]

Alarmists love to bang on about cigarette smoking but conveniently ignore the myriad of other scares we have been subject to by the government which amounted to very little.

Could you name a few, and how they are related to each other?

Or are you just making the point that "the government" has been wrong before, so they can't be trusted?

How is "this scare" emanating from the government anyway? As far back as I can recall governments have been behind the general population on issue relating to the environment, fighting tooth and nail until public support overwhelms their objections (as parroted from polluters PR staff).

 

[medusala]

Could you name a few, and how they are related to each other?

They were named in the article I l inked Chief. I would like to have named them but I would not like to break the BF rules relating to reproducing articles.

List included

Swineflu
CJD
SARS
Foot and Mouth

How is "this scare" emanating from the government anyway?

The other scares were based on scientific advice to the government.

 

[Frodo]

Europe is having it's coldest winter since 1974.

Climate changes........fact.

 

[bit_pattern]

^^ Probably all that wind they're generating in Germany!

But... Because I just know you ignored it

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16694247&postcount=56

 

[Frodo]

Alarmists love to bang on about cigarette smoking but conveniently ignore the myriad of other scares we have been subject to by the government which amounted to very little.

What we perceive today as truth and fact is often dis-proven in future years, as we learn more. (How ridiculed were the first to venture that the world was not flat)

Smoking was in fact promoted by doctors and the government as it was thought that the smoke killed germs in the lungs.

 

[bit_pattern]

(How ridiculed were the first to venture that the world was not flat)

Yeah, kind of like people who first ventured to suggest that human activity could affect the climate were ridiculed, and still are by a small minority of numpties and flat earthers!

 

[Frodo]

Yeah, kind of like people who first ventured to suggest that human activity could affect the climate were ridiculed, and still are by a small minority of numpties and flat earthers!

It was proven that the world was not flat.

It is hypothetical that human activity has caused climate change.

It is fact that over eons that climate has changed regularly, it is disputable if global warming is any more accurate than the global cooling theories taught pre 1967.

What is fact is that population has increased and hence we are utilising more of natures resources than we probably can afford to do.

 

[bit_pattern]

It has been proven that the grenhouse effect is real, that the radiative forcing of CO2 is 32 W/m2, that water vapour has a radiative forcing of 75 W/m2 and amplifies CO2's radiative forcing by 100%, and that CO2 concentrations have risen by nearly 40% and are on track to double by 2100. What about this do you dispute?

Sure, climate HAS changed before, we know generally what causes climate to change (insolation, greenhouse gasses, albedo and amplification), and most importantly we know what role CO2 has played in amplifying past climate changes.

It's not hypothetical, it's observable and testable. You just don't understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Only an idiot and a flat earther would deny that CO2 plays an important role in the earths climate.

 

[HarryTiger]

It has been proven that the grenhouse effect is real, that the radiative forcing of CO2 is 32 W/m2, that water vapour has a radiative forcing of 75 W/m2 and amplifies CO2's radiative forcing by 100%, and that CO2 concentrations have risen by nearly 40% and are on track to double by 2100. What about this do you dispute?

If it's a constant forcing per unit area then it doesn't matter how much we pump into the atmosphere the effect will always be the same.

I dispute you know what you're talking about.

 

[medusala]

It has been proven that the grenhouse effect is real, that the radiative forcing of CO2 is 32 W/m2, that water vapour has a radiative forcing of 75 W/m2 and amplifies CO2's radiative forcing by 100%, and that CO2 concentrations have risen by nearly 40% and are on track to double by 2100. What about this do you dispute?

CO2 forcing is proven to an accurate number?

It is proven that water vapour is a positive feeback?

Are you Al Gore in disguise?

 

[bit_pattern]

LOL, yes, got any evidence to the contrary? It's hilarious to hear you cast doubt on radiative forcing calculations (provable by experiment, I might add) but then get all flushed with indignation at the suggestion that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, wses the exact same calculations

 

[bit_pattern]

If it's a constant forcing per unit area then it doesn't matter how much we pump into the atmosphere the effect will always be the same.

I dispute you know what you're talking about.

I dispute that you know what you are talking about!

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

Luckily, I don't NEED to know what I'm talking about because I'm not the one disputing that the idea of radiative forcing.

 

[medusala]

LOL, yes, got any evidence to the contrary? It's hilarious to hear you cast doubt on radiative forcing calculations (provable by experiment, I might add) but then get all flushed with indignation at the suggestion that you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, wses the exact same calculations

We have been over this before. Even the HS mob give a wide range

There is still a large degree of uncertainty re water vapour

How hard is it to understand that just because you believe in the greenhouse effect does not mean you believe in the forcings and climate models of the IPCC etc?

It is a very, very simple notion.

Obviously too hard to countenance that so the order of the day is just to scream "denier" constantly.

 

[HarryTiger]

Without even opening it I can see that link won't explain to me that you know what you are talking about.

1 metre sq of area can contain various amounts and proportions of various gases.

How can you quote a forcing based on that unit?

 

[bit_pattern]

Without even opening it I can see that link won't explain to me that you know what you are talking about.

1 metre sq of area can contain various amounts and proportions of various gases.

How can you quote a forcing based on that unit?

A certain amount of energy hits an area (a square metre for instance), the amount of watts that the energy is amplified by, for CO2, is 32W he square metre measurement is the energy input, not the amount of CO2. Is that really that hard to grasp? You obviously have zero understanding, maybe if you actually deigned to clicking on a link from time to time, but as such your understanding of what W/m2 is obviously arse backwards, as always.

 

[bit_pattern]

We have been over this before. Even the HS mob give a wide range

There is still a large degree of uncertainty re water vapour

How hard is it to understand that just because you believe in the greenhouse effect does not mean you believe in the forcings and climate models of the IPCC etc?

It is a very, very simple notion.

Obviously too hard to countenance that so the order of the day is just to scream "denier" constantly.

Twaddle, the lot of it, just because you state something (still have that Goebbels complex I see?) doesn't make it true. Where is your evidence that the amplification of H2O is subject to "large" uncertainty?

And where in the greenhouse theory is the radiative forcing of CO2 in question?

 

[HarryTiger]

A certain amount of energy hits an area (a square metre for instance), the amount of watts that the energy is amplified by, for CO2, is 32Whe square metre measure the enrgy input, not the amount of CO2. Is that really that hard to grasp? You obviously have zero understanding, maybe if you actually deigned to clicking on a link from time to time, but as such your understanding of what W/m2 is obviously arse backwards, as always.

It's still a constant, you're just saying something something watts, "for CO2". So it doesn't matter what the ppm of CO2 is, it's always 32 W/m2 radiated.

 

[medusala]

Where is your evidence that the amplification of H2O is subject to "large" uncertainty?

Even the most fervent of warmists admits they arent sure the feedback of water vapour

And where in the greenhouse theory is the radiative forcing of CO2 in question?

The sensitivity of increased CO2 is not determined precisely. Who claims it is?

 

[bit_pattern]

No it's not. You're a numpty. W/m2 is juts a measurement base. A certain amount of energy input will be amplified to a certain degree, in this case it's measured by square metres.