Al Gore you turd

[biggytitbo]

This is brilliant! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7037671.stm

Shame they're still allowing it in schools though, an absolutely disgraceful situation as far as I'm concerned. Al Gore and the rest of the millionaire climate change aristocracy may be allowed to brainwash us all with their propoganda in the media but they shouldn't be allowed to indoctrinate children in our schools. May as well just have done with it and show the The Triumph of the Will.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

You don't go along with climate change and all that then?

[Hank_Kingsley]

I think he prefers primate change!

Ahahahahahhahaha!

[biggytitbo]

I think he prefers primate change!

Ahahahahahhahaha!

Oohh you!

[biggytitbo]

You don't go along with climate change and all that then?

Not really no. I think its more politics than science.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Surely climate change plays into your hands anyway:

IE- diminishment of natural resources= private businessses lose freedom to waste them

Your dreams of a socialist paradise are only a Gore away, yet you don't seem to realise.

[biggytitbo]

Surely climate change plays into your hands anyway:

IE- diminishment of natural resources= private businessses lose freedom to waste them

Your dreams of a socialist paradise are only a Gore away, yet you don't seem to realise.

I didn't realise I was a socialist? Climate change means one thing - more and less democratic government. That's more tax and more control and more surveillance etc. On top of this a whole myriad of groups have jumped on the bandwagon as a way of selling whatever they're selling and getting more power for themselves. You only have to look at the range of consumerist shite, so called 'green' insurance and energy products that are now been sold on the entirely dubious basis that they're carbon neutral or eco friendly and so on. I just find it particularly annoying because there are so many other far more pressing and important environmental problems like water and air pollution, habitat destruction and so on that get trampled by this juggernaut

[Regular Chicken]

The general public still don't give a fuck about global warming, yet it's a scientific fact. An Inconvenient Truth may include 9 scientific errors, but its goal was to raise awareness and I see that as a good thing.

[biggytitbo]

The general public still don't give a fuck about global warming, yet it's a scientific fact.

It's not though is it? In what way is man made global warming a scientific fact? It's actually a theory than can never be proved to any reasonable degree of likeliness and is largely the result of politics and institutional biases. MMGW is entirely the concern of the rich middle classes in the West, 99% of the rest of the world  - the poorly paid factory worker in China churning out consumerist tat for the west, the children in iraq dying because of DU, people in Africa whose water isn't fit to drink - don't give a fuck because they have better things to worry about. I'm sure they don't take too kindly to white multi millionaires with private jets and huge mansions lecturing them on how to live.

[bithez]

That's more tax and more control and more surveillance etc. On top of this a whole myriad of groups have jumped on the bandwagon as a way of selling whatever they're selling and getting more power for themselves. You only have to look at the range of consumerist shite, so called 'green' insurance and energy products that are now been sold on the entirely dubious basis that they're carbon neutral or eco friendly and so on

so the problem is that climate scientists are simultaneously crypto-stalinists out to expand government powers and destroy private enterprise, and lazy consumerist lifestyle-peddlers who haven't the guts to affect real change?

[biggytitbo]

so the problem is that climate scientists are simultaneously crypto-stalinists out to expand government powers and destroy private enterprise, and lazy consumerist lifestyle-peddlers who haven't the guts to affect real change?

Er no. The climate change scientists aren't anything. But there are lots of different groups, with different motives, who aren't aligned with each other, who are jumping on a bandwagon as a way of pushing whatever it is they're selling. You can see it already - there's hardly an advert on telly where some company isn't trying to crow bar in some dubious enviromental element into their product purely as a marketing tool. Then there's all those fraudlent carbon trading schemes that earn certain groups plenty of money but do fuck all to help the cause - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/48e334ce-f355-11db-9845-000b5df10621.html

And this is only the beginning. In the coming years there'll hardly be a corner of our lives where someone won't be trying to tenuously sell us something on the basis of global warming, whether its a product, a service or an increase in the politicians power over us.

[Whug Baspin]

Yes climate change prevention is in fashion with marketing people, but that's only becuase there is strong scientific research to show it is happening so it's bound to appeal to people.  The fact that people are cynically using this as a marketing device doesn't somehow add up to the whole thing being a lie. In the same way that loads or food producers are putting stickers on food saying it is 'Organic'. It is a marketing device, but that doesn't change the fact that organic food is better quality.

What do you mean by better things to worry about?, surely you mean 'more pressing', and if climate change is going to happen soon a lot of the poor of the world will be drowned, so I'd say it is pretty high up the list, probably below 'what's for diner?' but above 'if I get invited to the Oscars what will I wear?'.

[mitzidog]

I'm wholly against any notion of carbon offsetting. If you feel that bad about things you are doing then DON'T DO THEM. Assuaging your conscience by paying money to someone to not go on a flight so you can or whatever the deal is smacks of the worst kind of hypocricy.

It's plain that we're screwing about with the planet we're on and in more destructive and extensive ways than ever. It's a fool who'd see that and suppose there will be no effect on climate.

Either the politicians have got to get some worldwide shit going on or stop whinging at me not to go on holiday once a year. I don't mind doing my bit, recycling, low energy bulbs etc (already do in fact) but I'm not giving up my week away while China's opening new coal mines all the time.

Come on boffins - sort it out!

Oh and btw Organic food is nutritionally no better than non-organic and contain only marginally less "artificial" chemicals and more environmental contaminants than non-organic. The only exception is Milk which may be slightly better for you if Organic.

[Famous Mortimer]

It's not though is it? In what way is man made global warming a scientific fact? It's actually a theory than can never be proved to any reasonable degree of likeliness and is largely the result of politics and institutional biases.

Rubbish. It's the resulty of about 98% of all the scientists involved in this field in the world agreeing that man-made global warming is happening. All you're doing is allowing whatever odd view of the world you hold to cloud your view of perfectly decent science.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

It's not though is it? In what way is man made global warming a scientific fact? It's actually a theory than can never be proved to any reasonable degree of likeliness and is largely the result of politics and institutional biases. MMGW is entirely the concern of the rich middle classes in the West, 99% of the rest of the world  - the poorly paid factory worker in China churning out consumerist tat for the west, the children in iraq dying because of DU, people in Africa whose water isn't fit to drink - don't give a fuck because they have better things to worry about. I'm sure they don't take too kindly to white multi millionaires with private jets and huge mansions lecturing them on how to live.

I think you make an interesting point here, and several others across this thread which need addressing.  First of all, global warming is one of those things that ultimately can't be proved until long after the fact.  Which is why we can't really wait for the kind of cast-iron proof that would make even the most rabid neo-con turn on his heel.  The risks are quite simply far too great.

You're right in that when you have more pressing concerns like not being blown up by a carbomb, having a clean water supply etc you're unlikely to be particularly concerned with global warming until it actually comes knocking on your door - at which time you would be extremely concerned with it.  There is certainly a sense of annoyance in China and India that us rich westerners are flying over there to tell them not to buy up all the stuff that we've got, now they've finally got the chance to own a car etc.  Their attitude is that since we created global warming, we need to lead the world in changing our ways to combat it.  If we do that and lead by example, they will most likely follow.  Unfortunately the US (to whom this largely applies) is highly unwilling to lead by example, because they are afraid that China etc will simply carry on as they are and rob their position of premier superpower. 

The politicisation of global warming is a really wierd one, and something which really makes me angry.  Science, in my opinion, should never ever be politicised in this way.  It's an incredibly dangerous precedent to set, because it effectively polarises a community and can utterly destroy legitimate and even necessary scientific advance.  Global warming is a theory (in the scientific sense of the word) that has overwhelming scientific backing from a global consortium of scientists, and is not politically allied with any one group.  The naysayers of global warming however, almost always seem to either have clear political allegiances to neoconservative interests, or are being paid for by groups with a vested interest in muddying the waters of public understanding in the issue, such as oil companies.

If global warming is 100% accepted by American politicians and the public, the entire American economy would have to change in response - leading to the scaling back and possible closure for many industries, most obviously fossil fuels, but also the working ethos of companies such as general motors.  American business' interest in keeping the status quo in order to keep making money is leading to a situation where people believe global warming isn't happening because it's not convenient for them to believe it.  This happens all the time.

Finally, I completely agree with you regarding the selling aspect of global warming.  Capitalism always responds to people's concerns, and people want to feel that they're helping to slow or stop climate change by simply swapping from washing-up liquid to another.  The reality of course is somewhat different, as such a trivial change will make very little impact on the environment or global warming overall.  I don't think environmental awareness is a bad thing of course, and if these products are genuinely less harmful to the environment then that's a good thing - but what people don't realise is that a massive effort, comperable to being on a war footing, will be necessary in order to quickly and effectively combat global warming.  And frankly we're all too lazy to accept that - we'd rather buy our recycled toilet paper and say we're saving the planet that way.

Carbon offsetting is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard of.  It makes me think of the analogy of punching a man repeatedly in the face and then paying for his bupa treatment, and saying it's ethically justified because you're offsetting the damage.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense would suggest that it may be better not to do the damaging act in the first place.  Carbon Offsetting is giving us a false sense of moral action, allowing people to use misleading phrases like "carbon neutral", and ultimately delaying the direct action that will be necessary in order to stop global warming from taking place.

In my opinion, scientific consensus is so strong now that the risk of doing nothing is so great that it simply isn't an option.  Whilst I'm not strongly anti-capitalist, the form of capitalism we are living in now does not have the constraints necessary to allow us to make the changes necessary in order to save ourselves.  Saving ourselves would ultimately mean going against the current laws of capitalism, because capitalism by nature is short-sighted and favours short-term gain over longterm loss.

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

I'm sure there was a pretty huge conference held in regard to this over the past year, and the consensus emerged that climate change is very real. I'll try and dig out the links.

Even if your views on it are sceptical (read: denialist) then you'd have to accept that things like reducing pollution, using less energy etc are generally good things?

On a related note, has anyone seen this anti-Michael Moore film? Is it quite reasonable, or a load of point-missing conservative bullshit?

[biggytitbo]

Rubbish. It's the resulty of about 98% of all the scientists involved in this field in the world agreeing that man-made global warming is happening. All you're doing is allowing whatever odd view of the world you hold to cloud your view of perfectly decent science.

Two points really. Where's your proof that 98% of scientists in this 'field' agree? And secondly, why aren't scientists who aren't in this 'field' allowed to take part? Physicists, astrophysicists, geophysics, geologists, archeologists, botanists, historians, sociologists, pyscologists, astronomers etc? They tend to have different things to say than the bought and paid for climatologists herded into a fraudelent consensus by the IPCC.

Why exactly are the IPCC so unnacountable? Why aren't the subject to more public scrutiny? Several scientists have resigned from the IPPC because of the politicization and the pre-concieved agenda. Their objections never appear in any of the IPCC reports, often the opposite in fact. The 'consensus' is in fact a very narrow church of scientists (including lots of politicians and non-scientists too but they never mention that). The kind of scientisist whose entire career is spent within governmental and state institutions, dependent on governmental and state grants and funding. They think the same and have the same political, cultural and sociological point of view. When their science is so heavily dependent on computer models and interpretation, this is bad news.

I don't think the IPCC is some kind of grand conspiracy against mankind, it's a political body that believes in its own importance and it's own righteousness and like any politicians will spin and sex up the truth to fit their own agenda. Whatever the truth is about global warming the IPCC is not some impartial consensus of scientific thought I'm afraid. I think we need to sort out mankinds raping of the earth in so many different ways, but the last thing we need is fraudelent, undemocratic centralised world governments - because that way lies the road to hell.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

This is from New Scientist:

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.

The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.

Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict.

Of course, just because most scientists think something is true does not necessarily mean they are right. But the reason they think the way they do is because of the vast and growing body of evidence. A study in 2004 looked at the abstracts of nearly 1000 scientific papers containing the term "global climate change" published in the previous decade. Not one rejected the consensus position. One critic promptly claimed this study was wrong – but later quietly withdrew the claim.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654

[Still Not George]

You almost sounded reasonable there, but then I hit this bit...

fraudelent, undemocratic centralised world governments

... and realised that you are, in fact, completely stark raving mad.

[biggytitbo]

You almost sounded reasonable there, but then I hit this bit...

... and realised that you are, in fact, completely stark raving mad.

Perhaps I should have said beaurocracies. I mean, the UN, IPCC, WTO, World Bank and the IMF are all undemocratic govermental beaurocracies aren't they? What else would we call them? Its these kind of organistions - responsible for policies that kill millions of people in developing countires every year, that climate change zealots want to see given more and more power over us.

Do you believe the solution to the world's problems is globalisation and centralization of power? because its those two things largely responsible for the shit, both enviormental and othwerwise, that we're in now.

[Whug Baspin]

because that way lies the road to hell

Just ask Chris Rea.

[BigYeti]

The Royal Society say the following:

Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.

This is a guide for the simple on climate change controversies, it is where the above quote comes from http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

If there is an organisation I would trust on scientific matters, the Royal Society would be it.

EDIT: Spelling

[biggytitbo]

This is from New Scientist:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11654

There's far far more to this debate than science though. Have a read of this and tell me what you think - http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

[hencole]

I didn't realise I was a socialist? Climate change means one thing - more and less democratic government. That's more tax and more control and more surveillance etc. On top of this a whole myriad of groups have jumped on the bandwagon as a way of selling whatever they're selling and getting more power for themselves. You only have to look at the range of consumerist shite, so called 'green' insurance and energy products that are now been sold on the entirely dubious basis that they're carbon neutral or eco friendly and so on. I just find it particularly annoying because there are so many other far more pressing and important environmental problems like water and air pollution, habitat destruction and so on that get trampled by this juggernaut

Of course, but just because the popular policy's of goverments are wholly inefectual doesn't mean climate change isn't happening.

[Blumf]

There's far far more to this debate than science though. Have a read of this and tell me what you think - http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

Hummm....

One should first recognise that the atmospheric greenhouse effect is a well known natural phenomenon, mostly caused by atmospheric water vapour, that keeps our planet warm and habitable whereas (anthropogenic = human-made) global warming refers to a small extra greenhouse warming (0.5-1 C/33 C; 1-5 %) allegedly arising from an increase in atmospheric concentration of the minority greenhouse effect gas CO2 (carbon dioxide) – the later increase in turn possibly arising from fossil fuel burning (see below).

You can safely discount that guy's writings, he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He stumbles at the first hurdle and makes the classic climate change deniers mistake of confusing average global temperatures with specific measured temperature and thus thinks a degree or two difference has no significance.

[MojoJojo]

There's far far more to this debate than science though. Have a read of this and tell me what you think - http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

So we would just ignore the science?

I started reading that article but got annoyed by the "0.5C-1C" is only a little rise in temperature. Assuming that refers to average temperatures (it is of course completely unexplained what that rise refers to), that is actually a very statistically significant rise. And that is apparently just over the last 100 years, so the fact that it hasn't wiped out humanity is hardly surprising.

The fact that you complain it is all political, and then use blatently partisan essays to back up your position, is just stupid.

[Santa's Boyfriend]

There's far far more to this debate than science though. Have a read of this and tell me what you think - http://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global-warming-truth-or-dare.html

To be honest I don't have time to read all of that right now, but a quick skim-read of it rather suggests that it's trotting out the standard counter-argument.  Bits of it I agree with, in particular the likelihood of fossil fuel industries wanting to change, but largely I would have to say that from the skimming I gave it, it seems to be saying nothing that hasn't been said before.  But I will read it properly and come back with a proper response.

In the meantime, have a look at New Scientist's "Climate Change - A Guide For The Perplexed", which takes the 26 main arguments used against climate change, and counters each one.  (One of which I quoted above.)  It's far from complete, but is well worth reading.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

[Godzilla Bankrolls]

There's an enormous amount of hubris in taking on scientific consensus and the growing body of evidence that supports it.

There's certainly arguments to be made about the way it's being tackled.

[biggytitbo]

So we would just ignore the science?

I started reading that article but got annoyed by the "0.5C-1C" is only a little rise in temperature. Assuming that refers to average temperatures (it is of course completely unexplained what that rise refers to), that is actually a very statistically significant rise. And that is apparently just over the last 100 years, so the fact that it hasn't wiped out humanity is hardly surprising.

The fact that you complain it is all political, and then use blatently partisan essays to back up your position, is just stupid.

It's not so much the scientific aspect of the essay - like 99% of people who spout off on global warming I don't understand the science - it's the sociological and political anaylsyis that's important. From the chapter 'WHY GLOBAL WARMING? SCIENCE IS A BANDWAGON' onwards he hits the nail on the head as to what this is about.

Faced with this massive array of inconclusive or tentative or contradictory and incomplete results, the international (or national) commission must prepare a report that will be useful to governments and policy makers. They must attempt to identify the dominant or most likely trends, while keeping in mind that scientific truth cannot be established by a democratic vote or a popularity contest.

Having then identified the main trends and having extensively documented the pitfalls and limits of the reviewed papers, the international commission must also write an executive summary, for executives that want definitive statements. The executive summary is the only part of the report that has a chance of being read by the top decision makers and it is probably the only part of the report from which the media will cite. Few of the players who will read only the executive summary have the knowledge to appreciate its careful language and all the sacrifices of content and accuracy that have been made to produce it.

The beliefs of mainstream environmentalists are beliefs of the First World liberal middleclass. As such, the global warming myth fits right in.

The global warming myth, as propagated by the mainstream media, also works wonders on the general population: A global problem that we can solve by just changing our light bulbs to the energy saving kind or by voting for the Democrats or by trusting our scientists to come up with a carbon sequestration plan or by going nuclear for our electricity...

The media are allowed to talk global warming because it does not threaten power in any significant way. Indeed, it deflects attention away from real world issues. It's perfect. The scientists can debate it. The environmental activists are largely neutralized. Everyone thinks it's about CO2. The economists can work out the carbon credits. The politicians can talk environment without actually saying anything. Those who want to do something can change their consumer habits. The others can just ignore it and continue chatting about the weather.

The fact that the global warming myth has now attained this degree of media promotion and entertainment industry integration means not only that the issue is not threatening to power but that it has also come to be understood by power to be quite useful. In this regard, the global warming myth has joined the other useful media-supported myths that include: increasing crime rates, the terrorist threat, the American dream, that we live in a democracy, that greed and selfishness are unavoidable overriding consequences of human nature, that we all attain the economic status that fits our talents and efforts, that we help developing and Third World countries (that would be worse off without us), etc.

[rudi]

I don't understand the science

Well, erm, there you go then.