“Truth? You can't handle the truth!”

[JayzusB.Christ]

Tordels, lots of very smart people also disagree.

Yes, but far, far more smart people agree.  Obviously climate changes over time, but the overwhelming consensus is that we're accelerating the process to a dangerous degree.

Put it this way, which would you prefer world leaders to do:  To take a chance that the vast majority of scientists are right, and try to do something about climate change; or to take a chance that the minority are right, and sit back doing fuck all?

If they go along with the first option, and are wrong; well, the global economy will suffer somewhat (though localised pollution will decrease).  If they go along with the second, and are wrong, the world will descend into an uninhabitable desert far more quickly than it would if left to its own devices.

I'll take my chances on the first scenario, thanks very much.

[The Legendary Shark]

Once again, the false "either-or" argument. As I said, continue to study the CO2 claims by all means, but not to the detriment and derision of all else. If for no other reason than that isn't how science works, it's only how politics works.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

There doesn't seem to be much urgency in the way 'man made' climate change is tackled by the leaders of the world!

[Hawkmumbler]

There doesn't seem to be much urgency in the way 'man made' climate change is tackled by the leaders of the world!

Because a lot of the prominent world leaders will lose money if carbon based fuels start to be used less.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

And that's the problem. If we are heading into the abyss at ever growing speed, then they should do something about it. Makes you wonder! Money or climate, which one do people prefer, or believe!

[The Legendary Shark]

Nail. Head.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Nail. Head.

I'm sorry,  Sharky, I'm not trying to sound smart arsed, but that's the opposite of what you said earlier. 

CF is making the point that politicians are ignoring the increasingly apparent concept of man-made climate change for the sake of money, and I agree with him, judging by the US Senate's terrifying head-in-the-sand reaction to the overwhelming scientific consensus.

Yet you refuted my last post by saying that accepting the findings of the vast majority of scientists is a political,  rather than a scientific reaction.  Now you're agreeing that the political reaction is to ignore the scientific one.

Also,  you've accused me of putting forward an 'either / or' argument as to whether carbon emissions affect the climate, which is utterly unfair, because I neither believe that nor suggested it.  What I said was that human activity is ACCELERATING climate change.  Credit me with some intelligence, please.

[The Legendary Shark]

Carbon can't be taxed if it's harmless or if we stop using it.

I don't believe carbon is accelerating climate change. (The end-Ordovician (Hirnantian) Ice Age, 440 million years ago, began when CO2 was around 4,000 ppm and lasted a few million years.  At the end of that time, with 85% of marine life extinct, when the frigid oceans had gobbled up atmospheric CO2 to around 3,000 ppm, the globe suddenly began to warm up. In 2015, CO2 in the atmosphere was around a measly 400 ppm.)

I don't doubt your intelligence.

[JayzusB.Christ]

Carbon can't be taxed if it's harmless or if we stop using it.

I don't believe carbon is accelerating climate change.

Fair enough. You're entitled to your opinion. I agree with your first point but not your second.

It does seem that one of us has misunderstood CF's post though. What I gathered was that he believes that political leaders, for financial reasons, refuse to take seriously the global scientific consensus that humanity is playing a large part in climate change.  Which, if I understood him correctly, I agree with entirely.

Maybe I missed something though. Was that your point, Mr Burdis?

[TordelBack]

Climate change is multi-factorial, obviously. But the extremely rapid increase in global temperatures over the last century coincides with extremely rapid increase in carbon dioxide, one of the atmospheric components known to absorb and radiate long wavelength radiation. Thus there is a mechanism that plausibly assigns causation to this correlation.

The causes of the major glacial periods is a matter of much debate, especially the Late Ordovician (orbital/axial variations, landmass/current distribution, vulcanism etc). But I would imagine that if there was somehow paleoclimatological evidence for the kind of extraordinarily rapid change in atmospheric CO2 in conjunction with temperature change that we are experiencing now, we'd be looking very seriously at that.

[von Boom]

And that's the problem. If we are heading into the abyss at ever growing speed, then they should do something about it. Makes you wonder! Money or climate, which one do people prefer, or believe!

Unfortunately, the people with the money don't believe. Or care.

[Proudhuff]

...and the people without the money that suffer.

And that's what its about human suffering.

[Mikey]

Howdy!

Saw this so thought I'd pop me head in to share.

http://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2016-01-26-too-many-minions-spoil-plot#

I see it's climate week again...

A bientôt...

[Dandontdare]

I don't believe carbon is accelerating climate change. (The end-Ordovician (Hirnantian) Ice Age, 440 million years ago, began when CO2 was around 4,000 ppm and lasted a few million years.  At the end of that time, with 85% of marine life extinct, when the frigid oceans had gobbled up atmospheric CO2 to around 3,000 ppm, the globe suddenly began to warm up. In 2015, CO2 in the atmosphere was around a measly 400 ppm.)

The problem is that I don't understand the significance of those figures and NEITHER DO YOU. The people who DO understand whether that's a valid comparison or a boneheaded misinterpretation of the statistics are people who've spent years at university studying this stuff, and when the vast majority of them agree that you're wrong, I'm going to believe them.

[Jim_Campbell]

The problem is that I don't understand the significance of those figures and NEITHER DO YOU.

"Truth? You aren't qualified to statistically interpret the truth!"

Cheers

Jim