Arctic ice melting at 'amazing' speed

[IR35FanClub]

You are doing it again. I am not disputing that there is climate change I am disputing the degree that it is changing -is it a harmful change?-I am disputing whether it is man made enough to matter and whether man can do something to change it, and whether it is desirable for man to do so. I will also add that if journalists are disagreeing with you in order to sell more newspapers what then is Al Gore up to if it is not to enrich himself?

I also deeply distrust people who use sweeping cliches like "climate change" to make people think that something that is happening anyway underpins the credibility of what they say.

Furthermore the figures that are available are crammed into a very small number of years in the context of the life of the planet. We might find your hysterical attempts to brainwash us through fear a bit more credible if you could compare the figures to 5000 years ago.

I can't understand why I am not supposed to utther the brain washing term "Climate change". What else can you call it?

Climate is about weather patterns and average tmperatures and the like. And it's changing. Why is it brain washing to try and convince people who don't believe fact that the fact is a fact? And that the changes are damgaing, and not ok.

the best article I can find right now is this...

RealClimate: The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps

The basic issues is that on projected emissions and known climate sensitivity things will be bad. Hence the consensus they need to try and keep to 2 degrees of warming, which now seems to be heading towards a better restriction based on the overall number of Gigatonnes of CO2 we can emit. By bad, they mean population displacement, famiens and droughts, and severe weather events.

I read somewhere recently - that it's like the elephent is already in the room. The number of severe weather events has gone up, and yet we are still arging if we should do anything. These "events" have real costs measured in billions and human lives.

[d000hg]

Climate change is a bad term but it doesn't distinguish between what part is due to man.

[DodgyAgent]

And that's all I'll say on the subject . One thing I've found is that "deniers" don't want to belive so they say "prove it to me". and expect you to do all the work. I'm not a prophet, but have read enough to convince myself. E.g I could ask you to prove to me that your LCD screen is powered by electricty as as suitably difficult task.

I don't need you to believe me. To be honest it's all irrelevant what anyone thinks, becusae manufactureres of products have realised the public like things that use less energy as they are cheaper to run. E.g BMW, luxury car maker, has some of the lowest emmissions vehicles on the market. Fridges now use 1/3 of the electric they used to. Computers likewise. Bit by bit, it doesn't matter if I beleive or you believe, because energy efficinecy is getting better. (It's what drives economic growth - not energy consumption as originally thought).

Just like acid rain was turned around by using scrubbers on coal stack to remopve the sulphur, (which is why the german forests are still there) the ozone hole was plugged by banning aerosols, climate change will be reducedm maybe not quick enough, but then they'll come up with some geo engineering solutuions, like the company that has developed a way of using CO2 to make cement using the gas of powerstations. you can't get much more sequestered than that!

I just find it bizarre people want to take a point of view without having seemingly read up on their chosen point of view. And to think changing our ways means uneccesary cost, not and opportunity to reduce costs and drive innovation.

Fair enough but your lot are telling us that the climate is changing and that the world will end. Air pollution solutions and more efficient power plants are developed as a result of practical economics and advances in engineering born from hard and verifiable scientific research.

You and your lot are exploiting the concept of climate change in order to control and manipulate everyone else (and enrich yourselves - Al Gore the first to make a million from climate change) to behave as you wish them to behave. Alternatively you could just leave it to market forces to sort out problems just as they did with acid rain and inefficient power plants. To you people it is like a religion and you preach like a religious fundamentalist. Like religious fundamentalists you use emotive cliches and half truths - so most people take you for what you are - nutters.

[IR35FanClub]

Still waiting on your answer 35. Change == bad, is that your position? If things were getting colder and it was making things difficult for the fluffy tigers, would it be OK to burn lots of things to prevent this?

Be realistic, This isn't about the impact on fluffy tigers or koala bears. Its about the impact on people and economies (ficing stuff that got borken by the weather and having to deal with differeing crop yields).

Your hypothesis is an irrelevant distraction as it's not getting colder, and not caused by us.

If you want to know what "bad" is use google.

[DodgyAgent]

Be realistic, This isn't about the impact on fluffy tigers or koala bears. Its about the impact on people and economies (ficing stuff that got borken by the weather and having to deal with differeing crop yields).

Your hypothesis is an irrelevant distraction as it's not getting colder, and not caused by us.

If you want to know what "bad" is use google.

How do you know that the changes in our climate are not just part of a cycle that would have happened anyway had man not inhabited the planet?

[IR35FanClub]

You and your lot are exploiting the concept of climate change in order to control and manipulate everyone else (and enrich yourselves - Al Gore the first to make a million from climate change) to behave as you wish them to behave. Alternatively you could just leave it to market forces to sort out problems just as they did with acid rain and inefficient power plants.

For the record, I think Al Gore is a knob. when he first got all preachy on the subject he had the same CO2 emissions as a small country. I think to be able to
talk the talk you better walk the walk first, especially if you have millions.

And yes, I'm trying to manipulate you all into accepting climate change so I can sell you my next invention. It's not quite ready yet, hence me starting my marketing on CUK as a test bed of resistance. (It is futile).

Oh, and I am serious, I have invented something that means you won't need to buy gas or electric to heat your home... well may be a little bit of electric in winter. I just hope the CIA aren't reading this forum or I'll be disappered in a week.

[IR35FanClub]

How do you know that the changes in our climate are not just part of a cycle that would have happened anyway had man not inhabited the planet?

Becuase I've read up on it. Things like this...
RealClimate: Natural Variability and Climate Sensitivity

Read the comments after the article to get a better idea of the debate.
and follow some of the linked articles.

It's hard work.

But at the end, you think, at least I know now why I think my opinion is based on fact, not what the daily mail has said.

[Scoobos]

Climate change or no climate change, anything that suggests that Dodgy should consider not running at 100% greed is going to be countered. Be that social welfare for the disabled, or the death of human beings due to catastrophic weather conditions.

Sharing or being considerate is not in line with some people's views.

Even if there is a chance that its true (not needing 100% fact) its worth avoiding doing things that hurt future generations ... But not to some people, they need 100% fact, and knowing it isn't there can then justify completely ignoring all of it.

At least as IT or science people, we know about research and learning about things scientifically . A view you hold from proper research of science is worth more , whichever way you bend.

It's not worth engaging with people who just know how to blow hot air and blag people. You're wasting your breath.

[EternalOptimist]

How can the article claim the melt is unprecedented , then say it is the worst in 1500 years ?

and what caused it to melt worse 1500 years ago ?


two simple questions

[d000hg]

Be realistic, This isn't about the impact on fluffy tigers or koala bears. Its about the impact on people and economies (ficing stuff that got borken by the weather and having to deal with differeing crop yields).

Your hypothesis is an irrelevant distraction as it's not getting colder, and not caused by us.

If you want to know what "bad" is use google.

As you already said, climate has always changed. It would be changing if we hadn't effected it. So we should learn to adapt, not try to stop the changes.