hahaha

[DocBot]

[...] what evidence have you bothered to look at? Because the overwhelming majority of the people who are actually qualified to make that call seem to be on the other side of the fence.

Is there a reason you choose to call the non-profit organizations and universities' research, but not the research sponsored by these bodies, propaganda? What are you basing that on?

[no evidence]

[no reasons for calling it propaganda]

I see you are avoiding my questions...

EDIT: just saw you had your a-level thingie, whatever that is; it seems important. But when you get the time, I'm still waiting for any sort of backup for your claims, other than repeating actual propaganda. Choosing what to believe on political grounds is a slippery slope...

Oh and I'm sorry if I'm coming off as rude, I'm really just arguing your position, here.

 

[Ronin Storm]

So we spend billions of pounds combating 'global warming' to help countries thousands of miles away, then low and behold, climate change isn't down to humans and theres nothing much we can do about it. Meanwhile, we are left in a poor economic state, whilst countries such as China and India have continued to expand and take over more and more of the global market.

So, let me get this straight here, you refuse to believe in global warming because of a fear that rapidly developing Asian countries are going to take over all the resources and leave us with nothing? Not because the evidence for a lack of climate change is convincing or because the evidence for climate change fails to be compelling? Pure hostile economics?

Besides, isn't that only a step away from "the Communists are coming, better get them before they get us"?

Ice core analysis shows that, in comparison to the last 800,000 years, the levels of carbon dioxide (CO[sub]2[/sub]) and methane (CH[sub]4[/sub]) are rising more rapidly than any previous precedent (source 1, source 2). Specifically, the last 200 years has been the focal point for this change; that puts us square on the industrial revolution. Loosely, that means we're off any map we might have hoped for as to where our climate is headed and that puts us into fundamentally unpredictable territory.

 

[DocBot]

[mod]Moved to the Soap Box[/mod]

Please keep the debate going; this is fun!

 

[Wraith]

Unfortunately there is not enough conclusive evidence one way or another on the subject of climate change. Until there is, or until there is a clear economic benefit to behaving "greener" it is going to be impossible to get enough people to change their ways. This can be seen at all levels of society, from individuals all the way up to governments.

Incidentally, I disagree with DocBots earlier comment of

the other side (i.e. environmentalists) won't gain anything if they "win".

If I remember correctly, one of the main proponents of climate change theory is Al Gore, Chairman and founding partner of Generation Investment Management LLP, a company that sells "carbon credits". The more people believe (correctly or incorrectly) in climate change, the more likely they are to use companies like this and thus increase the wealth of ....................... (wait for it) .................... Al Gore.

I personally have not yet made my mind up about all this. There are good studies on both sides, as well as some quite flagrant hypocrisies. At the moment I'm leaning more in the "we are causing it" direction, as there seems to be more evidence that way. However, I don't particularly believe we're in for a global catastrophe on the scale predicted by some of the more pessimistic of the environmentalists.

 

[Taffy]

So, let me get this straight here, you refuse to believe in global warming because of a fear that rapidly developing Asian countries are going to take over all the resources and leave us with nothing? Not because the evidence for a lack of climate change is convincing or because the evidence for climate change fails to be compelling? Pure hostile economics?

no; thats one reason I don't want to rush into 'combating' climate change.

Besides, isn't that only a step away from "the Communists are coming, better get them before they get us"?

Not at all, it's looking after number one. Why? Because if you don't, no-one else will.

It is well known that we are coming out of an ice age right now: why on earth would you NOT see global warming? according to Dr John R Christy of the University of Alabama, the warming we are experiencing at the moment is likely to be natural recovery from the 'Little Ice Age' (SOURCE)

In fact, many climate change projections coming from your sources, DocBot, could very well be inaccurate.

Right now I do not have confidence that changes in sea ice and clouds are done correctly in climate models. The annual cycle is not correct in many models, so why should it be correct in climate change [projections]?

Thats from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.(SOURCE)
This is the chief reason I'm anti-warming; I just don't believe the data. I don't believe there is a consensus amongst scientists, and I think it is mainly spin, propaganda and doom mongering.

 

[Taffy]

At the moment I'm leaning more in the "we are causing it" direction, as there seems to be more evidence that way.

There are certainly more studies for that direction. Mainly because any scientist who leans the other way is vilified by environmentalists and accused of taking bribes by the oil companies.

 

[DocBot]

(SOURCE)

That source is eleven years old, and, as far as I can see, not peer-reviewed or published.

In fact, many climate change projections coming from your sources, DocBot, could very well be inaccurate.

[...]Thats from Kevin Trenberth, head of climate analysis at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo (SOURCE)

You know, funny thing; Kevin Trenberth is one of the lead authors of that IPCC assessment report. That is the only source I've posted re actual climate change (and not the problems with making a Type II error). I'm fairly confident he agrees with the report, since he wrote it [yes yes, not by himself]. And I'm fairly sure he wouldn't dismiss his own writing. That makes me fairly sure that his statement doesn't apply to my sources.

Oh and re projections, of course they could be wrong. I never said anything else. I'm definitely of the opinion that you should take climate/weather projections with a pinch of salt. But when they start saying the same thing, over and over again, well, you'd need a bigger pinch.

This is the chief reason I'm anti-warming; I just don't believe the data. I don't believe there is a consensus amongst scientists, and I think it is mainly spin, propaganda and doom mongering.

I keep asking why you don't believe it. Where's the evidence against it? So far you've posted a link to an outdated, non-published report, and another to a profit-driven organization that uses the words "patriot" and "freedom" a lot in their mission statement. Neither is very good as a source.

 

[DocBot]

Mainly because any scientist who leans the other way is vilified by environmentalists and accused of taking bribes by the oil companies.

With the risk of repeating myself; evidence? Sources? You're saying, here, that scientists care more about environmentalist opinions than fact? Is there a certain spine-removal procedure for these scientists? How are the environmentalists suppressing all the findings that should point towards the other direction?

Have you asked yourself whether it's possible that you are the one being influenced by propaganda, here?

 

[Gopha]

I think it is mainly spin, propaganda and doom mongering.

It is true that people do like to assume the worst.

If we just say assume that it is fossil fuels that are 'dooming' us all then our country is changing that and we do not contribute too much to that, it is the asian countries that are still contantly using fossil fuels such as coal, especially China , they are not listening to what the world has to say about being greener, theyre only out for themselves, we have begun to change so surely more pressure should be placed on the eastern countries who have still not recognised the situation and begun to deal with it?

 

[Klown]

it is the asian countries that are still contantly using fossil fuels such as coal, especially China

The US is still on top of the Co2 per capita thingies afaik, although the asian countries arent too far behind..