SA Footy

Believer, skeptic or unsure yet?

it is an absolute scam sham bullshit

It is generally considered a fact that the planet's climate is going through some changes. There is however an argument as to whether this is just a part of one of the many cycles the climate goes through and has gone through for aeons or as is believed to be the case by the majority of climatologists that carbon dioxide filling our atmosphere is the cause.

Now im no genius but this graph got my attention.



Everytime Co2 concentration rises so does temperature. Check out current day Co2 levels.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:it is an absolute scam sham bullshit

Based on....

history

the best way to predict the future is to relate back to the past

I'm no scientist but we just had our coldest and wettest winter in 20 years in the driest state in the driest country in the world.

Based on that I think some humans believe they are bigger than god (not that i believe in that) and can't accept that weather changes!

Big deal worry more about todays issues.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:history

the best way to predict the future is to relate back to the past

Interesting theory but if that was the case we'd have a society of historians and not scientists.

Don't think it's as simple as yes, no or maybe.

Yes I believe there is climate change and in part it is a natural, cyclical phenomenon which has resulted in me living in a year round cold, damp s**thole that no longer has anything resembling a summer

No I don't believe modern society is solely to blame but I do think it now contributes to it so I also don't think that is a license for people to behave irresponsibly.

Regards
JAS

It's a La Niña year (for Australia), hence the colder weather and higher rainfall.

White Line Fever wrote:I'm no scientist but we just had our coldest and wettest winter in 20 years in the driest state in the driest country in the world.

Based on that I think some humans believe they are bigger than god (not that i believe in that) and can't accept that weather changes!

Big deal worry more about todays issues.

The planet has just had it's hottest decade on record which sort of makes a coldish winter pale in comparison.

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:it is an absolute scam sham bullshit

So what monetary gain to the scientists have to gain from this 'scam'.

There's no doubt in my mind that continual pollution from fossil fuels consumed by an ever increasing population must have some deleterious effect on the environment.

fish wrote:

White Line Fever wrote:I'm no scientist but we just had our coldest and wettest winter in 20 years in the driest state in the driest country in the world.

Based on that I think some humans believe they are bigger than god (not that i believe in that) and can't accept that weather changes!

Big deal worry more about todays issues.

The planet has just had it's hottest decade on record which sort of makes a coldish winter pale in comparison.

Yes, it's all about global statistics, not localised effects. Ironically there's some areas that will get wetter during global warming and some people cant understand that.

the earth naturally causes more pollution then society, its part of a cycle.

Here's a stat I saw on Catalyst once:
Earth temp's have risen 2 degrees over the last 125000 years. In the last 250 they have risen 0.25 of a degree, ie a 12.5% rise in 0.2% of the time, ie 60 times more than normal. Consider the amount of new settlement (America, Australia), deforestation and grass areas replaced by bitumen and buildings, population growth, industrialisation, use of motor vehicles, electricity use in the last 250 years.

I had to vote "don't believe" on the assumption the poll meant that human activity was the major cause.
I would have supported the view that it is possibly a contributing factor.

FlyingHigh's statistic from Catalyst [not exactly a primary data source] may be correct about the overall rise only being 2 degrees in 125,000 years.
However:
1. 125,000 years is a small sample of the billions of years involved.
2. It doesn't exclude large fluctuations during that period of 125,000 years.
[Like the vineyards in Yorkshire in 200AD, and Greenland being green, not white, from about 900AD to about 1100 AD. It is not warm enough for those to happen now.]

Barto wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:it is an absolute scam sham bullshit

So what monetary gain to the scientists have to gain from this 'scam'.
There's no doubt in my mind that continual pollution from fossil fuels consumed by an ever increasing population must have some deleterious effect on the environment.

"Monetary gain": Research grants.
Medical research, too, is being shaped by the fact that tight government grants are pushing researchers to use funds from big Pharmacy companies.
Recommended weight charts and recommended maximum cholesterol levels have been lowered by results from such research.
The question arises whether the findings are coincidental or related to the new products being sold to achieve weight loss and cholesterol lowering these days.
There are commercial industries cashing in on the global warming fears too - like solar panel makers, for example.

I agree with your second statement, even if it may not be the present global warming.
[I am concerned about carcinogens in diesel, and bio-diesel, fuel exhausts among other things.]

Psyber wrote:I had to vote "don't believe" on the assumption the poll meant that human activity was the major cause.
I would have supported the view that it is possibly a contributing factor.

FlyingHigh's statistic from Catalyst [not exactly a primary data source] may be correct about the overall rise only being 2 degrees in 125,000 years.
However:
1. 125,000 years is a small sample of the billions of years involved.
2. It doesn't exclude large fluctuations during that period of 125,000 years.
[Like the vineyards in Yorkshire in 200AD, and Greenland being green, not white, from about 900AD to about 1100 AD. It is not warm enough for those to happen now.]

Ackowledge what you are saying about the data source. I have been intending to find where it came from, but haven't as yet.
Also agree that 125,000 years isn't a huge sample, and the data would/could differ if we went 250-500-1,000,000.
What gives me the sh!ts is people denying it using their time-frame on this planet, wish is barely the blink of an eye even though 70 years seems so long to us - things such as when it was 48 global warming was bullsh!t because we had 48 degree days 100 years ago in one little pocket of the world, or that it "was just as hot when i was a kid" a whole 40 years ago. Or think it is their god-given right to use up the world's resources like we are.
Or that it is some great government conspiracy all across the world to tax people and stop individuals achieving for themselves, when it has been topical for the last 20-30 years and parties of all persuasions have been in and out of government.

While not related to my own field of study, I've been keenly reading scientific literature regarding current climate change and there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that current variations from long term cyclical trends is largely due to human impact. To say the debate is split within the scientific community is wrong, impartial findings are overwhelmingly in support of climate change being man made. In regards to scientists being influenced by industry, social groups or their own personal gain you need to bear in mind that whatever is published is also reviewed anonymously by unrelated research groups.

Personally, this is a huge issue to me. I have been deeply dissatisfied with our political response to the problem. I am in no measure a greenie but when viable alternatives exist to fossil fuels I cannot believe they are not addressed. I strongly support the use of nuclear power as an alternative, both to overcome the upcoming fossil energy scarcity and also for a carbon free energy source, especially in Australia. Not only that, we should also be offering to store the spent fuel of other countries. We have both the natural deposits of uranium to mine, and the perfect places to store spent fuel (back where we mined it from). We could be the Saudi Arabia of nuclear energy. With the income gained we'd be able to stop relying on coal as a major economic industry and have the extra wealth to pump into health, infrastructure ect.

Psyber wrote:

Barto wrote:

mighty_tiger_79 wrote:it is an absolute scam sham bullshit

So what monetary gain to the scientists have to gain from this 'scam'.
There's no doubt in my mind that continual pollution from fossil fuels consumed by an ever increasing population must have some deleterious effect on the environment.

"Monetary gain": Research grants.

To suggest that the many thousands of respected climatologists and earth scientists who have researched and contributed to our knowledge of human-induced climate change over the past 30 years or so are involved in some sort of conspiracy to rip off research grants is, quite simply, unbelievable not to mention hugely insulting to the scientists involved.

I'm a bit like Psyber on this one. I don't disagree that climate change is legitimate, however I am uncertain as to how much impact humans have on it.

Despite this I do think humans, as the beings at the 'top of the chain', have a responsibility to care for the earth and reduce our impact on it as much as possible. We should be:

- exploring alternative energy & fuel sources
- reducing our dependence on fossil fuels
- actively recycling as much as possible
- carefully considering our urban growth
- working towards sustainable food sources for everyone

I'm sure there's plenty more, they're just the few that came into my head right now. Anyway - my point is all of this stuff should be happening not to combat climate change as such, but out of the general obligation we all have to our town/country/environment/ecosystem/planet.