The climate change debate is there any point to it?

Question

So some seem to think that we are creating the climate changes by the way we live our lives and everything needs to be modified to protect the environment, others say that the earth controls what happens not us.
I agree with the latter argument as the world has been on a constant cycle since it was created, and since the ice age the earth has heated up on its own and without humans doing it as otherwise the ice would never have melted. The earth therefore is heating up on its own and we can't control the atmosphere or environment and the earth will destroy itself through its own doing not ours. So I say stop taxing us for travelling and stop increasing costs or travel, its all part of evolution and natural development and that can't be changed or stopped.
Whos to say this didn't happen billions of years ago and there was a planet like earth that already existed but was destroyed. And through natural developments this has all started again on earth.

Answer 1

Pay close attention to the link I posted below. That's the future for us here in America if the unproven agenda driven hysteria of Anthroprogenic climate change is embraced here. Welcome to the world of agenda driven science. The chief proponent is the U.N it sees this issue as a way to collectivize~~they would say unite~ Humanity for what they consider a greater good. Billions of dollars are behind this effort. As our society has become more & more technological. The decisions and implications of our tech become more subject to political agendas. At first I too subscribed to the theory of Global Warming. I followed it closely, I began to see more & more of an agenda driven mindset as opposed to a fact driven one. And it's not so much the facts in evidence. Remember the people on 'point' with this issue are scientists. So the data they introduce is compelling. What troubles me is the data they exclude. Case in point. The current models claim to account for changes due to the Solar effect buy accounting for the Sun's radiant output. But what has been made recently clear is that not ALL aspects of solar output are accounted for. It seems that Changes in the Sun's Magnetic Field determine how many cosmic Rays strike the Earth's upper atmosphere. This controls cloud formation, and consequently impacts on the Earth's climate. for a more detailed reading of the Cosmic Ray issue please review the 2nd link I provide. Another example of deception the famous IPCC (U.N.) report on Climate change. Many posting on this issue wave this like a talisman to ward off the arguments against Anthroprogenic Warming. What many of them don't know is that that report is just a summary. I have seen sections of the full report due out in Late Summer for obvious reasons. In it are data that MUST be included in the report, but contradict the summary conclusions. The lay media tout the summary's statement that there is a C.I. level of 90% when the standard is 95%. Statistically the data compiled could not meet that traditional more rigorous 95% standard. Also not all of the 2000+ scientists are research scientists, many are policy wonks and reserchers deeply invested in the warming conspiracy. Several scientists are in court demanding their names be taken off the summary report. So there is much going on behind the scenes. Most of us are too busy or not able to know about and understand all the forces behind this issue of Man-made Climate Change.

Answer 2

Yes there is because the science is being used as the basis for future Government policy that will affect us all. However, the entrenched nature of the debate is now preventing proper progress towards an acurate picture of what is actually happening and what is responsible for the 'uncontested' observed increases in temperature we have seen giving us the hottest years on record all coming in the last decade.

The C4 programme raised some fundemental questions over the science used as the justification for Government policy on carbon emissions and the switch from carbon rich fossil fuel to carbon neutral renewable sources.

If we are the cause then the heating is anthroprogenic global warming (AGW) and it seems wholly justifiable that we take all necessary steps to help mitigate the effects of AGW and repair the damage already caused - the precautionary principle applies (as for as I'm concerned) and the good news is that at least we can do something about this.

If we are not responsible and it's fluctuations in solar activity that is the dominant and overriding factor behind the heating (GW) then the switch to carbon free energy is unnecessary and deeply damaging for the developing world.

On the science the C4 programme raised the following points:
a) The ice core record shows that temperature leads CO2 by 800 years therefore CO2 is affected by temperature not the other way around.
b) Observations by satelite and weather balloons do not provide validation of the theory of AGW.
c) There is a strong correlation between sun spot numbers and temperature.
d) Water vapour not CO2 is the dominant green house gas driving heating (GW) and the CO2 contribution to GW is insignificant in comparison.

I would like to see the AGW modelling community provide a clear, coherent, fact, theory and evidence based rebutal of these points. If they can do so then surely that would be sufficient to clear the matter up. It's actually nothing more than what the sceptics have done to the AGW theory through the C4 programme. Lets see the proponent of AGW defend their theory against the points raised.

I listened with interest to Radio 4 at 8pm this evening to a programme which brought the two sides to the table and it turned into a heated slanging match with no clear response to the points raised in the C4 programme.

I was a very strong proponent of the AGW theory and our need to mend our ways and make the necessary changes before we bring misery to future generations and for the time being the precautionary priciple is my default position. But after watching the C4 programme I am now totally back on the fence regards the science. Science is not about opinion it's about theory followed by a demonstration of validity of that theory through empirical measure and observation. Both sides cannot be right. I think that we've moved closer to the answer now that a proper open debate has broken out on this subject, but I am certainly no longer convinced that our well meaning actions are necessary and may in fact be completely counter productive. Let's clear up the science and set the correct path for future Government policy based on solid science - that's theory backed by observation and evidence in agreement with the theory not in opposition to it.

Answer 3

Do you agree with the latter 'statement' in order not to have to do anything about it or have you critically reviewed all of the science?
The world indeed has been on a constant cycle for many thousands of years, but we are loading it with extra pollutants which trap heat and cause much more warming than is natural. It's largely the result of the laws of physics, namely the greenhouse effect which I'm sure you've heard lots about. As a starting point, take a look at this graph, notice the correlation between temperature changes and CO2, the peaks are interglacial periods, the troughs are ice ages. On the right is where we are now in terms of CO2 concentrations , the extra 100ppm is due to humans. What do you think the temperature is going to do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg

The 'some' who have measured changes in global temperature and are trying to change the way we live our lives
include the vast majority of atmospheric scientists in the world, who have tried to bring this problem to the attention of the public for many years in the hope that something will be done. The same scientists, for example, were rightly believed when the ozone hole problem was discovered and thankfully dealt with by the 'quick fix' method of replacing and limiting CF Cs. Since no quick fix is proposed for climate change the scientist suddenly become mistrusted money-grabbers in it for their own gain (Phew, at least we have those altruistic oil companies looking after our rights to burn hydrocarbons).

As for taxes, I don't want to be unnecessarily taxed, but if that's the only way to make changes then so be it.

If you think we can't possibly have an effect on the atmosphere and the world due to their size then consider the images in the link below, they show all of the air and water in the world, on the same scale as the earth.
http://www.adamnieman.co.uk/vos/index.html

I also strongly recommend you watch an inconvenient truth or at least go to their website, this at least represents the vast majority of scientist involved with climate change unlike the recent Channel 4 'swindle' one which offers an unscientific picture.

What ever you decide to do, or not do about it is of course up to you, but my view is that the science of increased global warming due to human activity is sound and we should do something about it while we can.

Answer 4

Consider the earth is a space ship on a very long trip. Most all of it is not up to our control. Look for the natural cycles,I call them the cycle of life. Our is recycled by mature or plants through photosynthesis . Our air is recycled continually by The plants . Our plants also recycle our fossil fuels what u think about that. there are many things in nature to keep everything in balance . The variables are continually vering the amount of CO2 they can handle. Also don't forget that when u breath out comes that bad CO2 . It is natural and the plants don't care where it comes from. U could look at the rain cycle ,the ocean cycle . This earth is fantastic on recycling every thing .

Answer 5

Debate always has to be a good thing. Even if the politicians are wrong at least they are making an attempt to cut down on the emissions. It's funny though how much money in revenue the government gets from fossil fuels and other carbon emitting devices.

Answer 6

i have been telling people it is a pointless debate since it started!

The extra Co2 that we are pumping out at the moment will not affect the climate until it has been through the rock cycle, when the rocks start to accumulate more than the natural amount of Co2 they will release more of it into the atmosphere which will add to the amount in the air as a whole - this is when global warming will start, in about a million trillion years.

The warming we are experiencing now is part of the Earth's natural cycle.

Answer 7

You're not getting taxed extra for traveling and the cost of travel has nothing to do with climate change, unless magically wherever you are they've taken drastic action but I've heard of no such programs.

Actually the green economy which you imply is bad is actually a great thing. It means cheaper fuels for cars, which will run cleaner and longer and you won't be making oil barons tons of money. I mean think of it, they use any stupid reason to hike up gas prices saying they'll be experiencing losses, then every year they have billions of dollar in PROFIT, how the hell is that fair for the little guy? There's a tax for you that shouldn't exist, the idiot corporation draining your bank for profit tax.

That said, climate change is happening, and it is manmade. Sure it's been heating up but we've made it heat up at a faster rate than anything else before. It's basic science and it's been evident for years. In fact it'd be worse if not for some volcanos going off and sending sulphites into the atmosphere, as well as when we stopped using CFCs.

We make it not only by driving, and by using power, but also by clearcutting land to use for farming. We can change how we do business though, and we should, it'll save us more than doing nothing.

Think of it this way, if we allow climate change to continue the way it is with the current factors, there'll be worse storms, which means more property damage, which means higher insurance rates for people in those areas(it's already happening in Key West, lots of people there can't afford the insurance).

Also, it means more drought and heavier rains, because weather systems will be more polarized. You cannot simply divert rivers to feed an entire continent, just not enough water flow. Also you have to deal with fallout from floods, not only monetary but also emotional as your stuff washes out of your house.

Anyhow, as for the science, the scientists just report the facts, they don't make them up. The 1 degree raise in temperature in 100 years is huge because it's too fast, faster than before and faster than nature would allow on it's own without human-made pollution. Also 1 degree at the equator means something like 10 degrees at the poles, which is a weird way for them to get a median. As for the earth getting destroyed, it won't, so don't worry, but it will change, and the faster the change the harder it is for us to adapt to it, same for our furry friends out in nature, who don't get air conditioning.

Lastly, we've gone to the moon and beyond, we've conquered villainous world superpowers(the Nazis for instance), we've created the most amazing technologies that were unimaginable to our ancestors. Is it that hard for us to change a few lightbulbs, get better fuels, use cleaner power, and generally live with less smog and pollution in our lives? I think it flies in the face of everything we in the developed world stand for to back down from this challenge.

Answer 8

Humans have dumped a trillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. Another few trillion tons and the planet may become uninhabitable, or perhaps natural processes will save us. Is that a risk you are really willing to take?

The fact that various other natural processes also affect global temperatures is irrelevant.

Answer 9

So what is the point in living?

I love people that can take hours making arguments for doing nothing. I think you have a bit of nerve using a scientific argument, when you clearly do not understand the basic science.

I hope that you have to explain to your children or grand children that you decided the best answer was to do nothing.

Answer 10

Right on girly!!
I totally agree. It's all part of the NWO.
First it was the fabricated 'cold war' now it's the just as fabricated 'global warming'
Do what you want when you want. It's our world not theirs