Some Sobering Thoughts...

[woodrat]

Hi All. I came across this Youtube vid today.....I think its worth watching as I found it thought provoking...

The statement at 9:04 is quite alarming I think.

John

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmpiuuBy-4s&feature=plcp

[peter.coombe]

Thanks for that John. The same piece at 9:05 had me sitting up as well.

This whole climate change debate has been interesting, and from the video it has obviously been going on in scientific circles for a very long time. Having done a Phd in the distant past, I always tend to look at the evidence and make conclusions based on the evidence. I have made my conclusion. The amount of evidence supporting a rise in temperature is overwhelming, so it is almost certain we are going to have a warmer climate in the future. Of course there will be small pieces of information that does not support this conclusion, that is the nature of the beast, but the climate change sceptics hang onto this, take it out of context or use discredited information and peddle their misleading message. I read somewhere that 50% (and rising) of the American population believe that climate change is not real. That completely floored me. Is the American education system so bad, or is it some sort of religious belief? I don't know what the figures are in Australia, but hopefully less than 50%! It reminds me of big tobacco denial, and the controversy over fluoridisation of the water supply. What happened? The science won out in the end. Millions die from the effects of tobacco smoke, and our children have much healthier teeth than what our generation had before flouridation.

Once you accept that the earth's climate is getting hotter then there is the question of what is causing this. It is virtually impossible to prove that human activity is causing it. It is the old cause and effect argument. Scientists can do all sorts of correlations between human activites and carbon dioxide and/or temperature, but the existance of a positive correlation does not prove that human beings are responsible. You can do all sorts of correlations between things that are completely unrelated, and it means nothing. The hypothesis is fairly easy to disprove, but impossible to prove. So far just about all the studies from CSIRO and the like I have seen does show a positive corellation. Good evidence to support the hypothesis, but no proof, and it is likely to remain that way for some time yet. The sceptics of course will find other possible causes of increasing temperature, solar activity etc, but they can't prove it either and so the argument goes on and on. So far the evidence pointing towards a human cause looks pretty good to me. I liked the comment in the video that we were conducting a giant experiment on the globe. That pretty much sums it up.

[Nick]

Once you accept that the earth's climate is getting hotter then there is the question of what is causing this. It is virtually impossible to prove that human activity is causing it. It is the old cause and effect argument. Scientists can do all sorts of correlations between human activites and carbon dioxide and/or temperature, but the existance of a positive correlation does not prove that human beings are responsible. You can do all sorts of correlations between things that are completely unrelated, and it means nothing. The hypothesis is fairly easy to disprove, but impossible to prove. So far just about all the studies from CSIRO and the like I have seen does show a positive corellation. Good evidence to support the hypothesis, but no proof, and it is likely to remain that way for some time yet. The sceptics of course will find other possible causes of increasing temperature, solar activity etc, but they can't prove it either and so the argument goes on and on. So far the evidence pointing towards a human cause looks pretty good to me. I liked the comment in the video that we were conducting a giant experiment on the globe. That pretty much sums it up.

Good points Peter. The way I look at is that the Earth goes through cycles as part of spinning around the sun, we have evidence (through archeology) of ice ages, I wonder if there is also evidence (that could be read as such) of cyclical global warming, how would it show up in archelogical terms? I don't think human history is old enough to truly know what we are going through in terms of cycles only what our current knowledge of the universe will let us, there maybe a one billion year cycle that warms the planet? But no doubting us humans are speeding the natural process up by pumping gasses into the atmosphere (with some countrys managing it at a phenominal rate!).
Working alongside Chemists it's interesting to hear their take on it, one Prof is adamant that the "human causation" global warming element is a scam & a good way to get funding and he's been working for the past 40 years to prove some of their theories incorrect and some of his research I must say has a valid point.It's all to do with how much is absorbed by our oceans & is temperature related but he gets 'beaten' down everytime he suggests it in the scientific community.

[P Bill]

I'm not very optimistic for future life here. Even if global warming wasn't a problem other forms of polutition continue. Fracking, chemical farming, run off to waterways, uninhabitable oceans, oil, chemical and nuclear spills don't get much oxygen because of the "warming debate" and the silly " denier/ beliver " name calling.

[Nick]

I'm not very optimistic for future life here. Even if global warming wasn't a problem other forms of polutition continue. Fracking, chemical farming, run off to waterways, uninhabitable oceans, oil, chemical and nuclear spills don't get much oxygen because of the "warming debate" and the silly " denier/ beliver " name calling.

One things we humans are good at Bill is stuffing up the planet that's for sure! We need another Asteroid tragedy to reboot the earth computer otherwise we'll end up as one giant blue screen of death

[peter.coombe]

I wonder if there is also evidence (that could be read as such) of cyclical global warming

Well there certainly is evidence for warm periods in the earth's history, but the changes in temperature occurred very slowly. The current warming is very fast, faster than what has ever occurred before. That is evidence in favour of human influence (positive correlation), but not proof.

[P Bill]

The positive spin on global warming is that we can now search for oil and minerals in the previously inaccessible polar regions.

[nnickusa]

Herein lies the problem Peter. None are so blind as those that cannot see. The changes in the planet are irrefutable, and the acceleration of those changes since the beginning of the Industrial relovution are similarly irrefutable. They may not be proof and only correlation, but if, as has been suggested by a myriad of nay-sayers, we must wait until solid proof is available, it'll likely be too late to do anything to save our planet.

Sadly corporate, political, personal interest/greed/self-promotion, whatever you want to call it, overweighs the generally accepted view of the people that I know, anyway, have, that we have and continue to poison the earth, and that the end will be a lot quicker than the evolutionary process that spat us out, eventually, of the primordial mud.

We won't see the demise of the planet, but before too too many generations, it is a distinct possibility, while some a re still looking for "concrete proof," our grandchildren and great-grandchildren may well be looking to populate other planets.........The old-time Sci-Fi writers have been proven right before this...

[Allen]

I'm of the very firm belief that if there is a buck to be made, then someone will come up with a way of parting the masses with as much of it as possible. It's so ingrained in every aspect of life that people just don't seem to see it any more.

Here's a snap shot from the play book.

Find a plausible problem that is just so big that it will baffle everyone. Then through money at scientist to substantiate problem. Deny funding to any nay sayers. Nay sayers get on band wagon as they need to eat too. Convincing evidence is provided. Sell the story again and again and again. Nothing like propaganda to get people behind an idea.

Now that the masses are behind the problem it forces Governments to jump to the cause.

And it just so happens that a solution is in the offering.

......no one really wants to stop the way they're living, so what's it going to take to keep our lifestyle just the way it is...or maybe a little better.

Spend money.

Maybe just a bit at first. Like that free hit of heroin. But then when were all hooked the price kicks in. And who do you think is in charge of the stash? Carbon Credits that is? Investment Bankers and the mega rich.

That's right. If you want the lights on, all you have to do is buy "Carbon Credits" in order to keep those power plants running. And just like the US Federal Reserve, they will keep on printing Carbon Credits so that there is an endless supply to all that are willing to plunk down the cash for them.

But hey, maybe I've got it all wrong. It has nothing to do with parting the masses with their money

[Nick]

That's right. If you want the lights on, all you have to do is buy "Carbon Credits" in order to keep those power plants running. And just like the US Federal Reserve, they will keep on printing Carbon Credits so that there is an endless supply to all that are willing to plunk down the cash for them.

But hey, maybe I've got it all wrong. It has nothing to do with parting the masses with their money

I can't work this Carbon Credits crap out except as nothing more than a money making scheme. We all scrimp & save or pay extra carbon taxes on resources & switch to electric cars so that the country as a whole 'gains' carbon credits. We then sell the damn things to the worlds largest polluters so they can continue to pump millions of cubic metres of pollutants into the air. We live for a short time feeling all warm & fuzzy that we're saving the planet (or as the politicians would have us think) only to choke on the fumes coming out of another country's chimneys.Where's the logic in that one?

[peter.coombe]

I have been firmly of the view that nothing much will really happen until it turns into a major major disaster. No amount of scientific evidence will convince those that don't want to be convinced. Those that don't want to be convinced will (and have) invent fictional conspiracies and attribute that to the scientists who are telling them something they don't want to hear. This sort of thing has happened many times in recorded history so is nothing new. So, nothing will happen until millions die and/or countries fail or go bankrupt or war brings ruin. It will then be far to late to reverse global warming. So, we are doomed, but the disaster will be of our own making, and we were warned it would happen. Hopefully this won't happen in my lifetime and I don't have any children to suffer through it.

[deadedith]

I'm with Peter on this rather dismal assessment.

Also, science is not neutral, and neither are scientists.

[peter.coombe]

Also, science is not neutral, and neither are scientists.

I must disagree with that statement. Science is based on the scientific method which is specifically designed to eliminate bias. In it's most basic form it consists of formulating a hypothesis and then testing that hypothesis. Testing is done by doing experiments and/or by taking some measurements of a phenomenon and then working out the mathematical probability of the hypothesis being true. The crucial thing is the measurements must be taken from an unbiased sample. The experiments must alsio be based around unbiased sampling. If the sample is biased, then the probability figures will be wrong. Samples are unbiased if they are randomised. So in it's pure form, science is unbiased, i.e. it is neutral.

All scientists aim to follow these basic principles. Problems arise when scientists do not follow these principles because they are sloppy or corrupt, but usually the problems arise because it is difficult or impossible to get an unbiased sample. One example would be some medical research where you would need to kill someone to get a randomised sample. The fossil record also is not a randomised sample. Scientists are human and hence imperfect, we make mistakes, we are biased. So scientists are not neutral (i.e. are not completely unbiased), but the scientific method is designed to overcome that. Unfortunately with the climate change debate, things such as politics and money can blow scientific principles out of the water, and grossly biased samples are used to support one hypothesis or the other. Many of the sceptics are experts at selective sampling of evidence and choose to ignore the vast body of evidence that supports the other point of view. Even a simple thing such as a rise in global temperature is difficult to show beyond reasonable doubt. It is difficult to prove because weather is so extremely variable and the temperature differences are small in relation to the weather, so a vast amount of measurements need to be made to show a trend. All these measurements need to be unbiased. There will always be debate amongst scientists about the validity of data (i.e. is it unbiased), that is normal, but the sceptics have managed to blow this out of all proportion in order to support their own point of view. Some of our politicians are experts at peddling BS.

[deadedith]

Peter, you're talking 'pure science' or scientific method; I'm talking real world, science as it is paid for.

The inaccuracy of the dictum 'science is objective' has been addressed in a hundred books and a thousand articles. The method itself, beginning with the 'clear and distinct ideas' of Descartes' Meditations, has proven to be valuable; but as science is actually done, it is not objective. The methodology *might* be, but even that is questioned, particularly with the quantum physics, which states that the mere fact of observation can alter results.

In any case, IF humans have caused the current warming trend, which I doubt, it will take humans using science to deal with it. And the humans involved will not be unbiased, they will have personal gains to be made, scientific status to be attained and recognized etc.

And I'm not saying they are bad people.

[Kim]

And so the causation debate continues as uncertainties, possible probables, and pure speculation breath life into fiscally focused agendas....It could never be like taking candy from a baby, those that have it want to keep it and they will do and believe 'anything' to make sure they remain on the top of the heap.

But what is the best strategy if we allow that to happen by simply sitting on the fence until every little micropoint has been dealt with, until all has been either proven, or disproven???? That will take forever no??? Well if those who blame mans influence end up winning the debate, and there's a huge body of evidence already on their side, then we just don't have forever to wait as our train of 'effective' action is nearing its last stop at the top of the hill. So what do our children do if she keeps chugging right on past and goes over the top? That's the worry cause we don't have any brakes for that scenario and history shows its not in our nature to plan far enough ahead to even think about the need for such a thing until well 'after' they needed to be applied full lock. So I guess its going to be down hill all the way from there...

But what if we 'do' take action and reduce our reliance upon fossil fuels and start to live in a more environmentally friendly way? Woah!!! Whatever would we do without all that extra carbon?? If you're worried about the economic impact of such a change remember this. Money is a lot like energy, there's not a lot you can do to destroy it because when any influence is applied to do so it simply shifts from one place to another or one form to another...'that' is what has the 'haves' of this world so bloody terrified about any change...terrified enough to have the debate continue to rage in the media they own and control at any cost..lets hope that's not until its too late for the 'have nots' of the world to get off the bloody fence and demand action until we 'know' its not needed because to do otherwise is just plain stupid..In that I'm with Bill. I just don't hold out much hope of common sense prevailing I'm afraid, that's just not in our nature either, especially when big money has positioned itself at the tail from where it can so effectively wag the dog.

Cheers

Kim

[deadedith]

Ironically, if the have-nots become the haves, the problem will still remain. I'm not sure if that is 'irony' or not, I'm a little unclear on the concept. But if the problem is human behavior, then it is probably endemic to all humans? Is there a society of haves that was not at some time the have-nots? I'm just askin'. Do we have any reason to believe that, were places changed, the have-nots who are suddenly made the haves, would not repeat the same behaviors?

What to DO, then? I guess just wait until a minor apocalypse forces our hand.

[Kim]

Ironically, if the have-nots become the haves, the problem will still remain.

I think ur missing what 'the' problem is. Regardless of any human condition, if we wish to see them evolve and perhaps produce some answer then we need to maintain a planet which can sustain life. If the human influence side of this current debate turns out to be right and we continue to do nothing but wait for answers to all the questions, then we will have nothing. That's the 'real' irony right there.

[deadedith]

You may be right.

[Kim]

You may be right.

Geez I hope not Dave..

Cheers

Kim

[kiwigeo]

My ten cents worth:

Who cares if the whole global warming thing is proven to be a total hoax....if it spurs us into cleaning up the planet then its been well worth the effort. Were going to drown waist deep in or own shit before global warming gets us.

[kiwigeo]

The positive spin on global warming is that we can now search for oil and minerals in the previously inaccessible polar regions.

Shell are celebrating by engaging one of the worlds oldest drill ships (Nobel Discoverer) to drill its first Arctic wells. This rig started life as a log carrier built in 1966 and was converted to a drill ship in 1972. This rig's mooring system couldn't hold the rig on location off the Taranaki coast of New Zealand last year.......how do ya' reckon its going to handle conditions in The Arctic?

[deadedith]

It's easy to find facts to fit our theories and thereby 'prove' them correct; I'm guilty of that upon occasion. That is not scientific methodology though I think it is how some "science" is done: Pseudo-science. Like Al Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' which was such terrible drivel. Yes he won the Nobel Prize for it - from the same group of boneheads that gave Obama a Nobel Peace Prize before vetting him one bit, a most enlightening display of stupidity (or worse) on both occasions.

End of rant. The point: the public argument is no much about conflicting facts so much as defending conflicting worldviews. In other words, the problem is not epistemology so much as hermeneutics. (I love to use big words, it fools the unwary into thinking I'm actually smart, and maybe I will win a Nobel in Pretentiousness. )

Arguing conflicting worldviews is like arguing about conflicting religions - it can be really irritating and really frustrating OR it can really open doors for understanding, constructive action, and yes, love. I think we humans could find a way to satisfactorily if not perfectly control pollution; I don't think we will, but that is no reason not to try.

[kiwigeo]

The climate sceptics have hired a few people who have previously worked for tobacco companies defending tobacco as "safe". Forgive me if I take what they have to say with a grain of salt.

[kiwigeo]

We need another Asteroid tragedy to reboot the earth computer otherwise we'll end up as one giant blue screen of death

The asteroid theory is an old one. When it first came out there was a focus on the presence of irridium and other rare earth elements at the KT boundary that could be explained only by an xtraterrestial event. Since then irridium has been found to be associated with terrestial events such as the eruption of flood basalts (eg Deccan Plateau in India). Its quite feasible that massive eruptions of flood basalts triggered climate change over relatively short periods of time. Other factors associated with mass extinctions include changes in relative position of continents and the resultant change in ocean currents....ocean currents of course are known to exert a strong control on climate.