Starting to believe that this stuff about CO2 may be true...
Discussion
Really feel like I'm lighting the touch paper here but...
I've been reading New Scientist articles (and other reputable sources) all morning and just about every single one of arguements against global warming being caused by man have been disproved.
Also to my surprise, professional opinion really isn't divided on the subject. Infact,"a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet" according to New Scientist.
Now we all know that this isn't proof of global warming in itself but it does show the trend of opinion leaders. Afterall if 97.4% of aviation engineers said that your plane wasn't safe to fly based on evidence they had reviewed would you still ignore it if it saved you a few quid?
Whilst this isn't my area I remain a scientist by trade and I'm capable of exercising critial thinking when it comes to reviewing evidence and data. I also strongly disagree with George Monboit's position that the evidence is "as strong as evolution", however there really is a massive amount of peer reviewed evidence to support what they are saying.
Now this is just an hours reading. So it's not enough to form a proper informed opinion and I maintain my neutral status at this point. But even if the evidence is a 51:49 split in favour, from a view of probability it becomes the safer bet.
I'm seriously disillusioned, I'm genuinely starting to believe I may have backed the wrong horse. Worse still if the b
ds are right then the drive for better CO2 emissions becomes a logical, and perhaps even ethical, thing to do.
Anybody else in the same boat? Have many anti-climate change camp reviewed the evidence and been concerned by it? Or conversely have you, honestly, read the evidence and found it wanting?
Or like George Monboit suggests are we just willfully ignorant about choosing what we believe is true? Having read nothing to try to disprove our beliefs?
Tragically I think I may have fallen into the "choosing what I want to believe bracket"...
I've been reading New Scientist articles (and other reputable sources) all morning and just about every single one of arguements against global warming being caused by man have been disproved.
Also to my surprise, professional opinion really isn't divided on the subject. Infact,"a recent poll found that 97.4% of active climatologists agree that human activity is warming the planet" according to New Scientist.
Now we all know that this isn't proof of global warming in itself but it does show the trend of opinion leaders. Afterall if 97.4% of aviation engineers said that your plane wasn't safe to fly based on evidence they had reviewed would you still ignore it if it saved you a few quid?
Whilst this isn't my area I remain a scientist by trade and I'm capable of exercising critial thinking when it comes to reviewing evidence and data. I also strongly disagree with George Monboit's position that the evidence is "as strong as evolution", however there really is a massive amount of peer reviewed evidence to support what they are saying.
Now this is just an hours reading. So it's not enough to form a proper informed opinion and I maintain my neutral status at this point. But even if the evidence is a 51:49 split in favour, from a view of probability it becomes the safer bet.
I'm seriously disillusioned, I'm genuinely starting to believe I may have backed the wrong horse. Worse still if the b
ds are right then the drive for better CO2 emissions becomes a logical, and perhaps even ethical, thing to do. Anybody else in the same boat? Have many anti-climate change camp reviewed the evidence and been concerned by it? Or conversely have you, honestly, read the evidence and found it wanting?
Or like George Monboit suggests are we just willfully ignorant about choosing what we believe is true? Having read nothing to try to disprove our beliefs?
Tragically I think I may have fallen into the "choosing what I want to believe bracket"...
I think that most people are intelligent enough to accept that man made contributions COULD be warming the planet. What I really take exception to, is our politicians ramming their "FACTS" down our throats on a daily basis, and using CO2 as an excuse to agressively tax the population to support a decade of mis-spending.
trickywoo said:
Are you familiar with the term 'vested interest'
I'm referring to the state of the science not politics. I find it hard to believe that a majority 94.7% of environmental scientists are corrupt. Also worth a read;http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11653-climat...
Not wanting to sway your beliefs but this page is always an interesting read:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
mat205125 said:
I think that most people are intelligent enough to accept that man made contributions COULD be warming the planet. What I really take exception to, is our politicians ramming their "FACTS" down our throats on a daily basis, and using CO2 as an excuse to agressively tax the population to support a decade of mis-spending.
But the word "fact", in scientific terms, is a measure of probability based on evidence. It could easily be a fact. Quite frankly that's what worries me!In terms of tax I totally agree. I don't see how anyone couldn't. But that in itself doesn't stop the climate change brigade from being right.
Well it's good to question your point of view; it shouldn't be a matter of "backing a horse" or "belief", but a dispassionate review of the evidence. There are without doubt a lot of people on here who listen to the news they want to hear, as indeed there are on the other side of the argument.
Personally, for me it's worked the other way. I started off accepting the "consensus", but the more I read, the less and less convinced I am by the evidence.
Personally, for me it's worked the other way. I started off accepting the "consensus", but the more I read, the less and less convinced I am by the evidence.
Bing o said:
If only someone had started a thread about this in the news forum...
That's a good point...I don't want this in the news forum point blank. Afterall it's not concerned with politics, economics or news. I'm curious what reading around this issue people have done and whether or not they can back up their beliefs.
I have a degree in Chemistry with Physics and Astronomy - so it's fair to say I have a better grounding than most in this area. I am certainly not claiming to be an expert, I've worked in IT since leaving uni!
For me, I cannot see any evidence which disproves natural causes at the centre ofglobal warming climate change. The very fact that the name has changed, and 'man-made' dropped is enough to concern me.
The indisputable fact is that the planet has undergone massive changes in the past - which certainly were not caused by man, and some were just as rapid. There is no higher power than nature itself on this planet.
Yes, we have raped and pillaged our resources, and yes we are living a hedonistic lifestyle that must come to an end - but has it really caused these changes in temperature?
Until the politicians lay off, and leave the science to the scientists, I will not be changing my neutral to anti view.
For me, I cannot see any evidence which disproves natural causes at the centre of
The indisputable fact is that the planet has undergone massive changes in the past - which certainly were not caused by man, and some were just as rapid. There is no higher power than nature itself on this planet.
Yes, we have raped and pillaged our resources, and yes we are living a hedonistic lifestyle that must come to an end - but has it really caused these changes in temperature?
Until the politicians lay off, and leave the science to the scientists, I will not be changing my neutral to anti view.
The Black Flash said:
Well it's good to question your point of view; it shouldn't be a matter of "backing a horse" or "belief", but a dispassionate review of the evidence. There are without doubt a lot of people on here who listen to the news they want to hear, as indeed there are on the other side of the argument.
Personally, for me it's worked the other way. I started off accepting the "consensus", but the more I read, the less and less convinced I am by the evidence.
I'll have to disagree on your first point. I think that an opinion on climate change, or any scientific issue is a belief, and any belief is akin to backing a horse when the inevitable conflict of opinion arises. Whether you can justify your belief with truth is where the difference lies. When I say "I may have backed the wrong horse", I mean I may have failed to evaluate the evidence correctly. Personally, for me it's worked the other way. I started off accepting the "consensus", but the more I read, the less and less convinced I am by the evidence.
Can I ask what evidence changed your mind? Afterall ~95% of specialised scientists now officially disagree with you and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I am generally happy to subscribe to the view that saving energy, reducing waste and making our non renewable resources go further is a good thing.
I can't stop the government spending £billions on projects I wouldn't give 1 penny to. But at home I can save my own money.
That to me is the same as, I cannot stop the Chinese or the Indians or my next door neighbour from using energy wastefully, but I can do it personally.
I don't really know whether man made CO2 is going to cause climate change or not, but I am prepared to save energy and therefore money whenever possible.
mat205125 said:
I think that most people are intelligent enough to accept that man made contributions COULD be warming the planet. What I really take exception to, is our politicians ramming their "FACTS" down our throats on a daily basis, and using CO2 as an excuse to agressively tax the population to support a decade of mis-spending.
This.
And, assuming man is having an effect, why not start with the 'big-hitters'?
At the moment it feel like a situation whereby you are in your house, feeling it's a bit cold, and so you start siliconing the gaps between the skirting boards to try an reduce the drafts.....
....whilst the windows and doors are wide open.
My personal opinion -
I remain pragmatic on its validity, but if it is real then the consequences must be overstated otherwise the governments of the world would have reacted far more than a few minor surcharges and a bit of propaganda rammed down our necks. As much as we like to deny it, politicians aren't stupid, and if we really were going to be under water in 50 years time or heading towards the planet being completely uninhabitable then I would expect major, major changes forced upon us.
I think that we do need to be more responsible about the way we treat our planet to improve the quality of life for ourselves and our descendents, but I think AGW scaremongering is more about prolonging oil supplies and encouraging a gradual change in technology to something more sustainable to prevent the inevitable global war for the last few gallons to come out of the ground. It already started with Iraq, and it can't go on.
After all, a global nuclear war would have the same effect as the planet becoming uninhabitable through climate change, and it would be caused by the same thing: Burning oil, so what's the difference?
But to be honest, from unmitigated first hand experience the government don't even seem interested in realistically implementable, cheap, closed Carbon loop alternatives to using Petrol and Diesel, so one could easily surmise that it is purely about taxation and oppression.
I remain pragmatic on its validity, but if it is real then the consequences must be overstated otherwise the governments of the world would have reacted far more than a few minor surcharges and a bit of propaganda rammed down our necks. As much as we like to deny it, politicians aren't stupid, and if we really were going to be under water in 50 years time or heading towards the planet being completely uninhabitable then I would expect major, major changes forced upon us.
I think that we do need to be more responsible about the way we treat our planet to improve the quality of life for ourselves and our descendents, but I think AGW scaremongering is more about prolonging oil supplies and encouraging a gradual change in technology to something more sustainable to prevent the inevitable global war for the last few gallons to come out of the ground. It already started with Iraq, and it can't go on.
After all, a global nuclear war would have the same effect as the planet becoming uninhabitable through climate change, and it would be caused by the same thing: Burning oil, so what's the difference?
But to be honest, from unmitigated first hand experience the government don't even seem interested in realistically implementable, cheap, closed Carbon loop alternatives to using Petrol and Diesel, so one could easily surmise that it is purely about taxation and oppression.
Puggit said:
G_T said:
Can I ask what evidence changed your mind? Afterall ~95% of specialised scientists now officially disagree with you and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
95% of specialised scientists who's career and indeed industry relies on continuing funding...Puggit said:
I have a degree in Chemistry with Physics and Astronomy - so it's fair to say I have a better grounding than most in this area. I am certainly not claiming to be an expert, I've worked in IT since leaving uni!
For me, I cannot see any evidence which disproves natural causes at the centre ofglobal warming climate change. The very fact that the name has changed, and 'man-made' dropped is enough to concern me.
The indisputable fact is that the planet has undergone massive changes in the past - which certainly were not caused by man, and some were just as rapid. There is no higher power than nature itself on this planet.
But your degrees do not leave you better eqipped than the opinion leaders. You're not arguing with Joe Bloggs in the pub, you're up against a massive majority of highly specialised people who know their stuff (in theory).For me, I cannot see any evidence which disproves natural causes at the centre of
The indisputable fact is that the planet has undergone massive changes in the past - which certainly were not caused by man, and some were just as rapid. There is no higher power than nature itself on this planet.
There is a massive amount of data to show that the changes cannot is not a natural fluctuation. Have you honestly read any of this? Not only does it dispell natural fluctuations from the solar influences, things like CO2 coming from other sources have even been expelled because of the ratios of radioactive isotopes. There's a fair amount coming from well thought out and reputable sources.
Puggit said:
Until the politicians lay off, and leave the science to the scientists, I will not be changing my neutral to anti view.
But the scientists have spoken that's the whole point! 94.7% believe it's true! These websites to contradict global warming are largely set up by the delusional in a similar way to the hardcore environmentalists who are just desperate to jump on the eco bandwagon.Your reluctance to believe something until the politicians make it easier for you to do so is absolute proof of Monboits point!
Puggit said:
G_T said:
Can I ask what evidence changed your mind? Afterall ~95% of specialised scientists now officially disagree with you and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
95% of specialised scientists who's career and indeed industry relies on continuing funding...If a a scienist can sucessfully debase the current understanding of something they will guarantee their own success.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff