Global warming schobal warming? (1 Viewer)

[Froog]

more fuel for the man-made global warming deniers:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/20/ipcc-himalayan-glaciers-mistake

coupled with the recent scandals with the leaked emails its a lot of heat for the men of science.

so whats everyones opinion now? i still believe in man-made global warming of course, but think the scientists have made an awful cunt of the PR. copenhagen was a disaster and i fear the whole issue will be on the back burner for a while.

 

[Space]

One thing to always remember is that scientists need money for their research so it's very hard for them not to jump on the man made global warming bandwagon when it means they get money to continue furthering their research. Most of them are probably far more interested in their specific field of research than the politics surrounding the climate change debate. That's not to say any of them are lying to get money, it'd be more that they 99% sure it's happening and need more money to prove it.

 

[hugh]

It's not really the scientists job to do "PR". PR generally involves spinning, spoofing, persuading, exaggerating and often, outright lying. They try not to get involved with that stuff. Similarly, as Moose says, it's not their job to get involved in the politics surrounding climate change either. It's their job to try and figure out what's happening, and what's likely to happen in the future if we do, or don't, do various things. And they tend to couch their conclusions in language that seems equivocal but really just reflects the fact that scientists don't deal in absolute truths, but in conclusions based on available evidence.

And on the money thing - if any scientist could prove (or at least produce convincing evidence that) man made global warming is a charade then they would be showered with grants and get the Nobel prize immediately. And before someone says that they would never get a grant to try and pursue that line of enquiry anyway - scientists tend to apply for grants for work they have largely already done, and then use the money to pursue the thing they want to do next (though they don't admit that very often).

Oh and Froog asked what everyone's opinion is: my opinion is that anyone who doesn't believe man made global warming is a reality is either (a) an idiot or (b) has their head in the sand or (c) has an agenda for wanting to not believe it, or at least claiming that they don't.

 

[Green Goblin]

I hate the sudden backlash over climate change and it just shows how ignorant the average person has. It's an Ad Hominem attack, many of the comments being published are only odd if you're a right wing nut to begin with and it still doesn't change the fact that even if it wasn't real, the same measures taken against it are very healthy on a whole. I don't think we need another generation of asthmatics.

It's one of the things that annoys me more than anything. Especially when it's superreligious american cunts doing it, the earth is the closest thing to a god you're going to get, stop pissing all over it.

 

[Space]

I hate the sudden backlash over climate change and it just shows how ignorant the average person has. It's an Ad Hominem attack, many of the comments being published are only odd if you're a right wing nut to begin with and it still doesn't change the fact that even if it wasn't real, the same measures taken against it are very healthy on a whole. I don't think we need another generation of asthmatics.

It's one of the things that annoys me more than anything. Especially when it's superreligious american cunts doing it, the earth is the closest thing to a god you're going to get, stop pissing all over it.

For the first time ever I 100% agree with you. Although I don't think climate change has anything to do with asthma??

 

[shower another shower]

I'd be more concerned with polar shift, rather than global warming.

 

[ann post]

i'd be into global shifting.

froog, probably everyone on thumped agrees. if you want a fight, maybe take it to you know where.

 

[shower another shower]

I've a bit of polar warming going on right now.

 

[Froog]

froog, probably everyone on thumped agrees. if you want a fight, maybe take it to you know where.

eirecore?

 

[D0njo]

I think he meant the Horn For thread.



Yeah- Eirecore, douchebag, and you can't now, HA

 

[broken arm]

For the first time ever I 100% agree with you. Although I don't think climate change has anything to do with asthma??

I would suggest that they are linked. One example is that air pollution caused by industrial / car emissions etc. have been linked to asthma and at the same time are linked to CO2 emissions which are contributing to climate change.

the boring bit.....

Part of the problem is that most (if not all) environmental problems are interlinked. Policy makers need to "frame" problems and then use some relatively crude methods for deciding on actions to take. For example, we know that people driving cars in cities and urban areas is directly causing asthma and other human health problems ( air pollution is increasingly being cited as the main cause of lung conditions such as asthma - twice as many people suffer from asthma today compared to 20 years ago.). This impact can be measured with a reflective economic impact (povision of health services, reduced employment etc) so it makes it easier for policy makers intervene and estimate the cost/benefit of the intervention. With climate change, which is a cross cutting and massively complex problem, the cost/benefit of intervention is harder to measure. In the UK, the treasury released a report a few years back that attempted to quantify the macro economic impact of climate change - the report basically said that the cost of inaction outweighed the cost of action (mitigation and adaptation) . This type of framing of the problem makes it easy for the UK government to decide on policies and strategies for action. The issue is massively more complex when scaled up to a global level as the economic arguments for action for one country won't be same for another......

sigh

 

[Space]

There ya go.

 

[Vinnie]

It's rather tragic that occasional clumsiness in what is a colossal body of research work can have the most devastating effects on public opinion while climate change deniers mostly use demonstrably fictitious arguments to defend their side of the argument but never suffer even 1% of the backlash that climate change scientitsts have to endure. The right-wing are so much better at winning these (and many other) arguments because they never have to prove anything and never ever let facts get in the way of their pursuit of lots and lots of money

 

[Richie]

Even if man-made climate change turns out to be a totally bogus theory (and I'd be inclined to believe that unfortunately it is real), there's no escaping the fact that fossil fuels supplies are finite and will become more and more scarce and expensive as time goes by.. All the changes we're supposed to be making in the name of combatting climate change (i.e. reducing our energy usage and switching as much as possible to non-fossil fuel energy sources) are going to be needed anyway at some point in the future as oil, gas and coal become harder to get. Especially in this country where we're hugely dependent on imported energy.

 

[IFF]

The right-wing are so much better at winning these (and many other) arguments because they never have to prove anything and never ever let facts get in the way of their pursuit of lots and lots of money

in a Guardian article, George Monbiot had said "it takes the denier 30 seconds to make up a lie and it takes people 30 minutes to disprove that lie"

i think global warming is happening and we need to be taking action on it

but richie does make an excellent point, even if it isn't, changes still have to be made as oil is running out. oil is finite.

 

[nooleen]

in a Guardian article, George Monbiot had said "it takes the denier 30 seconds to make up a lie and it takes people 30 minutes to disprove that lie"

trolls IRL, in other words

 

[RSJ]

I really hate the phrase "climate change denier" as it deliberately aligns the person/s being described with "holocaust deniers". What ever happened to "skeptics"? It's the kind of dirty subliminal tactic I'd expect of Fox News, not (supposedly) reasonable people who're just trying to save the planet/us.

 

[IFF]

i think a good proportion of the people don't fit in with the definition of a skeptic

denier - denies climate change is happening
skeptic - skeptical that climate change is proven and believes more research is neccessary in order to know it

would doubter be fitting then denier?

also here's an article from skeptic magazine about global warming http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html

 

[magicbastarder]

also here's an article from skeptic magazine about global warming http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_human_induced_climate_change.html

it's a layman's book, but it is an excellent read, and covers a lot of ground about CO2 levels and life:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0007163657/?tag=thumpedcom-20

 

[RSJ]

i think a good proportion of the people don't fit in with the definition of a skeptic

denier - denies climate change is happening
skeptic - skeptical that climate change is proven and believes more research is neccessary in order to know it

would doubter be fitting then denier?

The language may be technically correct but it's still a fairly deliberate inferance and not one that needs be used. It just makes people more defensive. Maybe i'm being a bit liberal wishy washy about the whole thing, but the denier tag leaves me with a bad tase in my mouth.