The Facts and Fiction on Global Warming

[xoggoth]

You might as well make up your own figures. Like you did, Xoggoth. Or are yours based on research ?

My figures are based on many seconds of intensive research and are undisputable.

[Sergeant Apone]

I think it's worth highlighting one of the links in that programme the Master highlighted.

Hardly a day goes by without a new dire warning about climate change. But some claims are more extreme than others, giving rise to fears that the problem is being oversold and damaging the issue.

How much has the planet warmed up over the past century? Most people reckon between two and three degrees. They are not even close. The real figure, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is 0.6C.

It's not surprising most people get it wrong. We are bombarded by stories warning us that global warming is out of control. The most extreme warn us we will be living in a tropical Britain where malaria is rife and Norfolk has disappeared altogether.

Dr Hans Von Storch, a leading German climate scientist and fervent believer in global warming, is convinced the effect of climate change is being exaggerated.

"The alarmists think that climate change is something extremely dangerous, extremely bad and that overselling a little bit, if it serves a good purpose, is not that bad."

Why do the stories that reach the public focus only on the most frightening climate change scenarios? We decided to find out for a BBC Radio 4 documentary.

In 2005 the scientific journal Nature published the first results of a study by Climateprediction.net, a group of UK climate scientists. They had been testing what effect doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere would have on temperature.

The vast majority of their results showed that doubling CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of about 3C. Such an increase would have a major impact on the planet. The scientists of Climateprediction.net say that is what you would expect their model to produce, and many other scientists have produced similar results. However a tiny percentage of the models showed very high levels of warming - the highest result was a startling 11C.

When it came to selling the story to journalists, the press release only mentioned one figure - 11C.

The ensuing broadsheet headlines were predictably apocalyptic, from "Global warming is twice as bad as previously thought" to "Screensaver weather trial predicts 10C rise in British temperatures".

They may be dramatic but they are also wrong.

More here: A load of hot air?

[xoggoth]

Effects of doubling Co2 has that effect? Er yes but what about the additional methane from thawing of the tundra the subsea hydrates and from soil everywhere, increased reflection due to melting of polar caps, increased reflection due to more high clouds as a result of greater evaporation? Or is this all included?

[Sergeant Apone]

Effects of doubling Co2 has that effect? Er yes but what about the additional methane from thawing of the tundra the subsea hydrates and from soil everywhere, increased reflection due to melting of polar caps, increased reflection due to more high clouds as a result of greater evaporation? Or is this all included?

See here: http://climateprediction.net/science/model-intro.php

[snaw]

Tell you what....put your money where your mouth is and pop down to to a local sink estate, bang on the door of Mr and Mrs Asbo, and tell them...

"Sorry to be a nuisance, but in an unspecified amount of time, the greater crested titf ucker is going to be extinct due to global warming. You need to do something about it now, because I'm a sanctimonious little git who gets off telling other people what they should or shouldn't do."

Keep us updated from the phone beside the hospital bed.

You've got a nerve calling me sanctimonios!

BTW When I wanna gage the reactions of my local sink estate I just pop back up home. You'd be amazed, I imagine, to discover that quite a few people in sink estates are actually aware of a world outside of the local grim realities.

Sanctimonios, whinging and condescending; great combination. Bet you're a barrel of laughs to have a beer with. For the record, pops, I'd imagine we're far closer in age than you might think so drop the patronising tone if it's all the same to you. Just cause I don't choose to spend my life half empty doesn't make me half my age.

[vista]

I'll say again

I'm not a scientist so can't say what is good or bad evidence, I can only go on stuff I read over the years, and from my understanding the concensus viewpoint within the scientific community is that global warming is a fact (EVen the naysayers don't dispute this any more), and that our activities are the major reason for the accelerated trend we're seeing.

[/URL]

The Translation:
Scientists like to eat, work, have a career and generally get on with their lives so they toe the line as GW naysayers are considered on a par with child molesters, flat earthists or worse.

Perhaps if those that so feverently believe GW and its effects were more balanced, considered alternative opinion and didn't rabidly condemn or comprehensively attack/destroy those that questioned 'condsidered opinion' they would carry the day. Unfortunately those that try and even succeed in bullying others are rarely believed or supported by those that do not have a shared vested interest.

The 'we are the major reason' betrays the entire lie or convienent highjacking of the truth? Scientist and good science do not catagorically say anything unless there is absolute irrefutable evidence to back up assertions (and there aint many absolutes) yet here we have both an effect and a cause spelt out without a second thought. The timeframes involved make any such assertion at best risky and at worst undermines the entire message you are trying to get across and to the message is it really a planet saving message? or the latest 'cause'/big stick some people get their yah yahs hitting other people with.

You may be wrong or you and 'considered opinion' may be right however the way zealots behave it'll take a lot to convince me that you're not all 'Chicken Littles' with baseball bats beating cr@p out of anyone that disagrees with you just for kicks.

If more people list enironmental issues as a major concern then politicians take notice

We have had how many minority governments without a popular mandate for any policy? and bringing politicians in to the mix further discredits the argument. Once upon a time everyone from the pope down used to believe the planet was flat, this belief didn't change the spherical nature of our planet so yes everyone has been wrong before.

[Davros]

You've got a nerve calling me sanctimonios!

BTW When I wanna gage the reactions of my local sink estate I just pop back up home. You'd be amazed, I imagine, to discover that quite a few people in sink estates are actually aware of a world outside of the local grim realities.

Sanctimonios, whinging and condescending; great combination. Bet you're a barrel of laughs to have a beer with. For the record, pops, I'd imagine we're far closer in age than you might think so drop the patronising tone if it's all the same to you. Just cause I don't choose to spend my life half empty doesn't make me half my age.

sanctimonious

[snaw]

The Translation:
You may be wrong or you and 'considered opinion' may be right however the way zealots behave it'll take a lot to convince me that you're not all 'Chicken Littles' with baseball bats beating cr@p out of anyone that disagrees with you just for kicks.

Care to tell me how the reaction of many people in this particular forum, is any different to the one of the zealots you mention? I wouldn't disagree that considered majority scientific opinion could be wrong, and there has to be room for debate on this.

But from the perspective of someone who clearly falls into the 'believer' catagory, the opposite reaction is equally distaestfull, varying from the fingers in the ears yelling I'm not listening to the outright 'who sh!t on my carpet' hostile in yer face approach.

Personally for me the thing that always swings it can be quite clearly stated. I'm an err on the side of caution sort of person when it comes to things of this potential impact. Compare the contrasting outcomes of both sides of the coin and the impact of being wrong is much more costly on one side.

[snaw]

sanctimonious

The schools weren't too hot on spelling big words in my sink estate.

[Sergeant Apone]

Care to tell me how the reaction of many people in this particular forum, is any different to the one of the zealots you mention? I wouldn't disagree that considered majority scientific opinion could be wrong, and there has to be room for debate on this.

But from the perspective of someone who clearly falls into the 'believer' catagory, the opposite reaction is equally distaestfull, varying from the fingers in the ears yelling I'm not listening to the outright 'who sh!t on my carpet' hostile in yer face approach.

Personally for me the thing that always swings it can be quite clearly stated. I'm an err on the side of caution sort of person when it comes to things of this potential impact. Compare the contrasting outcomes of both sides of the coin and the impact of being wrong is much more costly on one side.

category
distasteful

Sgt Apone in "helping out the sink estate kids" mode