INFORMATION

This website uses cookies to store information on your computer. Some of these cookies are essential to make our site work and others help us to improve by giving us some insight into how the site is being used. For further information, see our Privacy Policy.

does anyone really care about global warming?

Enter here to explore ethical issues and discuss the meaning and source of morality.
Message
Author
User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#241 Postby Dave B » May 5th, 2014, 10:02 pm

Latest post of the previous page:

Earth in 1000 Years.

"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3112
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#242 Postby Tetenterre » June 27th, 2015, 1:51 pm

Steve

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. (Richard Feynman)

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3112
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#243 Postby Tetenterre » July 22nd, 2015, 9:55 am

Last paragraph notwihtstanding, I found this interesting: New Ice Age May Begin by 2030

The arrival of intense cold similar to the one raged during the "Little Ice Age", which froze the world during the XVII century and in the beginning of the XVIII century, is expected in the years 2030-2040. These conclusions were presented by Prof. V.Zharkova (Northumbria University) during the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno in Wales by the international group of scientists, which also includes Dr Helen Popova of the Skobeltsyn Institute of Nuclear Physics and of the Faculty of Physics of the Lomonosov Moscow State University, professor Simon Shepherd of Bradford University (UK) and Dr Sergei Zharkov of Hull University (UK).

It is known, that the Sun has its own magnetic field, the amplitude and spatial configuration of which vary with time. The formation and decay of strong magnetic fields in the solar atmosphere results in the changes of electromagnetic radiation from the Sun, of the intensity of plasma flows coming from the Sun, and the number of sunspots on the Sun's surface. The study of changes in the number of sunspots on the Sun's surface has a cyclic structure vary in every 11 years that is also imposed on the Earth environment as the analysis of carbon-14, beryllium-10 and other isotopes in glaciers and in the trees showed.

There are several cycles with different periods and properties, while the 11-year cycle, the 90-year cycle are the best known of them. The 11-year cycle appears as a cyclical reduction in stains on the surface of the Sun every 11 years. Its 90-year variation is associated with periodic reduction in the number of spots in the 11-year cycle in the 50-25%. In 17th century though there was a prolonged of the solar activity called the Maunder minimum, which lasted roughly from 1645 to 1700. During this period, there were only about 50 sunspots instead of the usual 40-50 thousand sunspots. Analysis of solar radiation showed that its maxima and minima almost coincide with the maxima and minima in the number of spots.

In the current study published in 3 peer-reviewed papers the researchers analyzed a total background magnetic field from full disk magnetograms for three cycles of solar activity (21-23) by applying the so-called "principal component analysis", which allows to reduce the data dimensionality and noise and to identify waves with the largest contribution to the observational data. This method can be compared with the decomposition of white light on the rainbow prism detecting the waves of different frequencies. As a result, the researchers developed a new method of analysis, which helped to uncover, that the magnetic waves in the Sun are generated in pairs, with the main pair covering 40% of variance of the data (Zharkova et al, 2012, MNRAS). The principal component pair is responsible for the variations of a dipole field of the Sun, which is changing its polarity from pole to pole during 11 year solar activity.

The magnetic waves travel from the opposite hemisphere to the Northern hemisphere (odd cycles) or to Southern hemisphere (even cycles), with the phase shift between the waves increasing with a cycle number. The waves interacts with each other in the hemisphere where they have maximum (Northern for odd cycles and Southern for even ones). These two components are assumed to originate in two different layers in the solar interior (inner and outer) with close, but not equal, frequencies and a variable phase shift (Popova et al, 2013, AnnGeo).

The scientists managed to derive the analytical formula, describing the evolution of these two waves and calculated the summary curve which was linked to the variations of sunspot numbers, the original proxy of solar activity, if one used the modulus of the summary curve (Shepherd et al, 2014, ApJ). By using this formula the scientists made first the prediction of magnetic activity in the cycle 24, which gave 97% accuracy in comparison with the principal components derived from the observations.

Inspired by this success, the authors extended the prediction of these two magnetic waves to the next two cycle 25 and 26 and discovered that the waves become fully separated into the opposite hemispheres in cycle 26 and thus have little chance of interacting and producing sunspot numbers. This will lead to a sharp decline in solar activity in years 2030 - 2040 comparable with the conditions existed previously during the Maunder minimum in the XVII century when there were only about 50-70 sunspots observed instead of the usual 40-50 thousand expected.

The new reduction of the solar activity will lead to reduction of the solar irradiance by 3W/m^2 according to Lean (1997). This resulted in significant cooling of Earth and very severe winters and cold summers. "Several studies have shown that the Maunder Minimum coincided with the coldest phase of global cooling, which was called "the Little Ice Age". During this period there were very cold winters in Europe and North America. In the days of the Maunder minimum the water in the river Thames and the Danube River froze, the Moscow River was covered by ice every six months, snow lay on some plains year round and Greenland was covered by glaciers" - says Dr Helen Popova, who developed a unique physical-mathematical model of the evolution of the magnetic activity of the sun and used it to gain the patterns of occurrence of global minima of solar activity and gave them a physical interpretation.

If the similar reduction will be observed during the upcoming Maunder minimum this can lead to the similar cooling of the Earth atmosphere. According to Dr Helen Popova, if the existing theories about the impact of solar activity on the climate are true, then this minimum will lead to a significant cooling, similar to the one occurred during the Maunder minimum.

However, only the time will show soon enough (within the next 5-15 years) if this will happen.

"Given that our future minimum will last for at least three solar cycles, which is about 30 years, it is possible, that the lowering of the temperature will not be as deep as during the Maunder minimum. But we will have to examine it in detail. We keep in touch with climatologists from different countries. We plan to work in this direction", -- Dr Helen Popova said.

The notion that solar activity affects the climate, appeared long ago. It is known, for example, that a change in the total quantity of the electromagnetic radiation by only 1% can result in a noticeable change in the temperature distribution and air flow all over the Earth. Ultraviolet rays cause photochemical effect, which leads to the formation of ozone at the altitude of 30-40 km. The flow of ultraviolet rays increases sharply during chromospheric flares in the Sun. Ozone, which absorbs the sun's rays well enough, is being heated and it affects the air currents in the lower layers of the atmosphere and, consequently, the weather. Powerful emission of corpuscles, which can reach the Earth's surface, arise periodically during the high solar activity. They can move in complex trajectories, causing aurorae, geomagnetic storms and disturbances of radio communication.

By increasing the flow of particles in the lower atmospheric layers air flows of meridional direction enhance: warm currents from the south with even greater energy rush in the high latitudes and cold currents, carrying arctic air, penetrate deeper into the south. In addition, the solar activity affects the intensity of fluxes of galactic cosmic rays. The minimum activity streams become more intense, which also affects the chemical processes in the Earth's atmosphere

The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. The increase in the volcanic activity comes after the Ice Age and it leads to the greenhouse gas emissions. The magnetic field of the Sun grows, what means that the flux of cosmic rays decreases, increasing the number of clouds and leading to the warming again. Next comes the reverse process, where the magnetic field of the Sun decreases, the intensity of cosmic ray rises, reducing the clouds and making the atmosphere cool again. This process comes with some delay.

Dr Helen Popova responds cautiously, while speaking about the human influence on climate.

"There is no strong evidence, that global warming is caused by human activity. The study of deuterium in the Antarctic showed that there were five global warmings and four Ice Ages for the past 400 thousand years. People first appeared on the Earth about 60 thousand years ago. However, even if human activities influence the climate, we can say, that the Sun with the new minimum gives humanity more time or a second chance to reduce their industrial emissions and to prepare, when the Sun will return to normal activity", -- Dr Helen Popova summarized.
Steve

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. (Richard Feynman)

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3112
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#244 Postby Tetenterre » July 22nd, 2015, 10:17 am

...and a response to the above: An Atmospheric Scientist Explains Why That ‘Mini Ice Age’ News Is Bogus

Last week, a press release from the Royal Astronomical Society caught the British news media’s attention. It quickly spread to American outlets, and soon headlines blared across the Internet announcing the coming of a “mini ice age” in 15 years. “Winter is coming,” announced one. “Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030,” ominously intoned another. Global warming skeptics announcing their vindication on Twitter followed shortly thereafter.

The problem is, none of this is true.

The press release in question was an announcement of a presentation to be given by Valentina Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in Newcastle, at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno, Wales. She and her team of researchers had analyzed the sun’s 11-year cycles from a purely astronomical perspective and found that the solar cycle that will come into force in the 2030s looks much like the one last seen in the mid-17th century, a time period known as the Maunder Minimum, when Europe and North America experienced particularly bitter winters. “Solar activity will fall by 60 percent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the 'mini ice age' that began in 1645,” the press release said.

The trouble is, the press release said nothing about what implications that solar cycle would have for conditions on Earth. It described conditions only on the sun. Yet the headlines announced a deep freeze anyway. Outlet after outlet echoed a line from the press release that solar activity would “fall by 60 percent.” Any reader who took a moment to digest the severity of that statement ought to have gone into a panic.

“A decrease in solar output of 1 percent would be a very big deal for the climate system. A 60 percent decrease would end all life on Earth, forever probably,” says James Renwick, a professor at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand and an expert in atmospheric physics, via email. “I am kind of surprised no one much has commented on this yet or pointed out how unlikely it is.”

What Zharkova and her co-authors meant, Renwick explains, was that the amplitude of the solar cycle may decrease by 60 percent during that period. In other words, during an 11-year period in the 2030s, the two magnetic waves that produce sunspots—temporary phenomena that correlate with higher levels of solar activity—are predicted to interact in such a way as to nearly cancel each other out, causing a 60 percent drop in the difference between peak and height solar activity, as compared with the 11-year-cycle before. This would equal a decrease in solar output of roughly 0.1 percent, according to Renwick.

What would a 0.1 percent drop in solar output mean for us? Not a whole lot.

“If things played out as described in Zharkova's paper, and we did see a decrease in solar output roughly as happened in the 1700s, there would be some cooling for 20 or 30 years,” according to Renwick. “But the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases are so much higher now (and will be even higher in 2030) that temperatures would not drop much below where they are today. And that drop would last only until 2050 or so. Then we'd have a bounce upwards again.”

Howard Diamond, the program director for the federal U.S. Climate Reference Network, came to the same conclusions. “Regionally, there may be more cooling, but overall the globe would go back for a while to conditions experienced in the first half of the 20th century,” he says, hardly a period of unusual cold. “Once the solar cycle strengthened again, we would be back to greenhouse gas-related warming again.

In other words, this won’t solve our little climate change problem. Sorry, Internet.
Steve

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. (Richard Feynman)

User avatar
Nick
Posts: 10821
Joined: July 4th, 2007, 10:10 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#245 Postby Nick » December 21st, 2015, 7:42 pm

Another interesting article by Matt Ridley, this time in [url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/
] The Spectator.[/url]

Why climate change is good for the world

Don't panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm

Matt Ridley

19 October 2013

Climate change has done more good than harm so far and is likely to continue doing so for most of this century. This is not some barmy, right-wing fantasy; it is the consensus of expert opinion. Yet almost nobody seems to know this. Whenever I make the point in public, I am told by those who are paid to insult anybody who departs from climate alarm that I have got it embarrassingly wrong, don’t know what I am talking about, must be referring to Britain only, rather than the world as a whole, and so forth.

At first, I thought this was just their usual bluster. But then I realised that they are genuinely unaware. Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change. And academics have not exactly been keen to push such analysis forward. So here follows, for possibly the first time in history, an entire article in the national press on the net benefits of climate change.

There are many likely effects of climate change: positive and negative, economic and ecological, humanitarian and financial. And if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today — and likely to stay positive until around 2080. That was the conclusion of Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University after he reviewed 14 different studies of the effects of future climate trends.

To be precise, Prof Tol calculated that climate change would be beneficial up to 2.2˚C of warming from 2009 (when he wrote his paper). This means approximately 3˚C from pre-industrial levels, since about 0.8˚C of warming has happened in the last 150 years. The latest estimates of climate sensitivity suggest that such temperatures may not be reached till the end of the century — if at all. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose reports define the consensis, is sticking to older assumptions, however, which would mean net benefits till about 2080. Either way, it’s a long way off.

Now Prof Tol has a new paper, published as a chapter in a new book, called How Much have Global Problems Cost the World?, which is edited by Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and was reviewed by a group of leading economists. In this paper he casts his gaze backwards to the last century. He concludes that climate change did indeed raise human and planetary welfare during the 20th century.

You can choose not to believe the studies Prof Tol has collated. Or you can say the net benefit is small (which it is), you can argue that the benefits have accrued more to rich countries than poor countries (which is true) or you can emphasise that after 2080 climate change would probably do net harm to the world (which may also be true). You can even say you do not trust the models involved (though they have proved more reliable than the temperature models). But what you cannot do is deny that this is the current consensus. If you wish to accept the consensus on temperature models, then you should accept the consensus on economic benefit.

Overall, Prof Tol finds that climate change in the past century improved human welfare. By how much? He calculates by 1.4 per cent of global economic output, rising to 1.5 per cent by 2025. For some people, this means the difference between survival and starvation.

It will still be 1.2 per cent around 2050 and will not turn negative until around 2080. In short, my children will be very old before global warming stops benefiting the world. Note that if the world continues to grow at 3 per cent a year, then the average person will be about nine times as rich in 2080 as she is today. So low-lying Bangladesh will be able to afford the same kind of flood defences that the Dutch have today.

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.

Cold, not the heat, is the biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths each winter. Compare this to the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed 15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there has been no summer death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it is not just those at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes after its current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost of heating — probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates.

The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it. On a windless, sunny day, a field of corn can suck half the carbon dioxide out of the air. Commercial greenhouse operators therefore pump carbon dioxide into their greenhouses to raise plant growth rates.

The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.

Dr Randall Donohue and colleagues of the CSIRO Land and Water department in Australia also analysed satellite data and found greening to be clearly attributable in part to the carbon dioxide fertilisation effect. Greening is especially pronounced in dry areas like the Sahel region of Africa, where satellites show a big increase in green vegetation since the 1970s.

It is often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited.

Even polar bears are thriving so far, though this is mainly because of the cessation of hunting. None the less, it’s worth noting that the three years with the lowest polar bear cub survival in the western Hudson Bay (1974, 1984 and 1992) were the years when the sea ice was too thick for ringed seals to appear in good numbers in spring. Bears need broken ice.

Well yes, you may argue, but what about all the weather disasters caused by climate change? Entirely mythical — so far. The latest IPCC report is admirably frank about this, reporting ‘no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency offloads on a global scale … low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms’.

In fact, the death rate from droughts, floods and storms has dropped by 98 per cent since the 1920s, according to a careful study by the independent scholar Indur Goklany. Not because weather has become less dangerous but because people have gained better protection as they got richer: witness the remarkable success of cyclone warnings in India last week. That’s the thing about climate change — we will probably pocket the benefits and mitigate at least some of the harm by adapting. For example, experts now agree that malaria will continue its rapid worldwide decline whatever the climate does.

Yet cherry-picking the bad news remains rife. A remarkable example of this was the IPCC’s last report in 2007, which said that global warming would cause ‘hundreds of millions of people [to be] exposed to increased water stress’ under four different scenarios of future warming. It cited a study, which had also counted numbers of people at reduced risk of water stress — and in each case that number was higher. The IPCC simply omitted the positive numbers.

Why does this matter? Even if climate change does produce slightly more welfare for the next 70 years, why take the risk that it will do great harm thereafter? There is one obvious reason: climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. To name just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.

As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, the European Union will pay £165 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britain’s climate policies — subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles and all the rest — is due to cost us £1.8 trillion over the course of this century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to lower the air temperature by about 0.005˚C — which will be undetectable by normal thermometers. The accepted consensus among economists is that every £100 spent fighting climate change brings £3 of benefit.

So we are doing real harm now to impede a change that will produce net benefits for 70 years. That’s like having radiotherapy because you are feeling too well. I just don’t share the certainty of so many in the green establishment that it’s worth it. It may be, but it may not.

Disclosure: by virtue of owning shares and land, I have some degree of interests in all almost all forms of energy generation: coal, wood, oil and gas, wind (reluctantly), nuclear, even biofuels, demand for which drives up wheat prices. I could probably make more money out of enthusiastically endorsing green energy than opposing it. So the argument presented here is not special pleading, just honest curiosity.

User avatar
Dave B
Posts: 17809
Joined: May 17th, 2010, 9:15 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#246 Postby Dave B » June 25th, 2016, 9:17 am

5_9_16_Andrea_TempSpiralEdHawkins.gif
5_9_16_Andrea_TempSpiralEdHawkins.gif (2.83 MiB) Viewed 3274 times
"Look forward; yesterday was a lesson, if you did not learn from it you wasted it."
Me, 2015

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 627
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#247 Postby coffee » July 4th, 2016, 3:43 pm

More people > mean more consumption > lead to more carbon footprint > lead to more climate change. So now you know the root cause of climate change, please support these

http://www.populationmatters.org/attenborough-talk/

http://www.populationmatters.org/

https://www.facebook.com/PopulationMatters

http://www.populationmatters.org/david- ... opulation/

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 627
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#248 Postby coffee » July 12th, 2016, 4:19 am

Britain must urgently prepare for flooding, heatwaves and food shortages, says Government report
The UK's supply of food could be put at risk as droughts and storms devastate farmland in the UK and abroad, report warns

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 31561.html

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21836
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#249 Postby Alan H » July 15th, 2016, 12:40 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
coffee
Posts: 627
Joined: June 2nd, 2009, 4:53 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#250 Postby coffee » July 18th, 2016, 3:26 pm

Rate of species decline 'no longer within safe limit' for humans, experts warn

http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 37476.html

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21836
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#251 Postby Alan H » July 29th, 2016, 3:48 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21836
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#252 Postby Alan H » August 16th, 2016, 1:48 pm

Professor Brian Cox clashes with Australian climate sceptic
However, Mr Roberts said the climate data had been "corrupted".

"What do you mean corrupted?" Prof Cox asked.

Mr Roberts responded: "Manipulated".

"By who?" Prof Cox asked.

"Nasa," Mr Roberts said.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21836
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#253 Postby Alan H » September 12th, 2016, 11:43 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21836
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#254 Postby Alan H » September 27th, 2016, 4:47 pm

Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3112
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#255 Postby Tetenterre » June 2nd, 2017, 6:26 pm

Steve

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. (Richard Feynman)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21836
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#256 Postby Alan H » June 2nd, 2017, 6:46 pm

Tetenterre wrote:Possible sticking plaster:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40421871/th ... ate-change

With that idiot Trump withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, we're going to need a lot more than that to compensate.
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
Tetenterre
Posts: 3112
Joined: March 13th, 2011, 11:36 am

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#257 Postby Tetenterre » August 10th, 2017, 12:17 pm

I'm no fan of Lawson and his climate-change denial, but I do wonder why Gore gets a 'free pass' from scientists. Obviously, I've not seen his latest film, but I have seen "An Inconvenient Truth", and it is riddled with factual errors, inconsistencies and "fudges". (I can't find the notes that I made ten years ago when I was watching it but, IIRC, I counted over 30 of them.)

The problem with Gore's stuff being let through uncritically is that it gives ammunition to the deniers. (In my case, it made me wonder why so many people were supporting a contention that was - if what Gore spewed was the basis - founded on obvious BS.)

Neither Lawson nor Gore has climate-science credentials. Both talk palpable shite. Both are "interested parties". Both should be effectively criticised.
Steve

I would rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned. (Richard Feynman)

User avatar
Alan H
Posts: 21836
Joined: July 3rd, 2007, 10:26 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#258 Postby Alan H » August 10th, 2017, 1:25 pm

Which scientists are giving Gore a free pass?
Alan Henness

There are three fundamental questions for anyone advocating Brexit:

1. What, precisely, are the significant and tangible benefits of leaving the EU?
2. What damage to the UK and its citizens is an acceptable price to pay for those benefits?
3. Which ruling of the ECJ is most persuasive of the need to leave its jurisdiction?

User avatar
animist
Posts: 5880
Joined: July 30th, 2010, 11:36 pm

Re: does anyone really care about global warming?

#259 Postby animist » August 11th, 2017, 10:33 am

Nick wrote:Another interesting article by Matt Ridley, this time in [url=http://www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/
] The Spectator.[/url]

Why climate change is good for the world

Don't panic! The scientific consensus is that warmer temperatures do more good than harm

Matt Ridley

19 October 2013
belated and brief response to this. There may be something in publicising the beneficial effects of a warming climate, but Ridley is ignoring the underlying concern about this - which is that this warming is or may become uncontrollable unless stringent efforts to limit it are made ASAP. In short, you can have much too much of a good thing


Return to “Humanist Ethics & Morality”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests