Climate Change

Atlantis?

I think that is probably in the range of myth, although there are villages and towns in the Domesday Book that are now under the sea. However civilisations destroyed by climate change include the Harrapan (3,000 - 1,000BC), Mayan (250 -900AD), The Akkadian civilisation in Mesopotamia, Egyption Old Kingdom and Early Bronze Age cultures in Palestine, Greece and Crete all declined after 2300BC. In each case the cause was drought.

When they all start migrating north are we going to welcome them with open arms? Also, we now have state borders that people are not allowed to cross so they can't just up sticks and look for a better climate to settle in. Think Africa with all its straight lines - humans and other animals have always crossed these lines for mostly reasons of weather and seasons.

What is the matter with you all? We will never be able to address and cope with climate change if people refuse to accept or just don't undertstand what is happening. I have grandchildren and it is my biggest worry. We have responsibilities to our children and grandchildren - at least I believe we do - but not many perople seem to accept this responsiobility. We also have a responsibility to the human race - I truly belive this and I'm an atheist.

That is why I mostly post on this thread - for reasons of morality.....I don't believe in god but I do believe in morality and responsibility.

Carbon, sorry, 'What is the matter with you all?' The answer is 'nothing', most people now are aware of climate change and most people are taking action domestically to alleviate it, extra insulation in their houses, recycling, using their cars less. Maybe some are doing it purely for financial reasons; fuel prices, including fuel for transport are rocketing. Governments are also doing their bit; the drive for and investment in renewable energy, the need for all coal-fired power stations that can not reduce emissions and CO2 to close by the end of 2015.

You are clearly very driven on this subject and have very strong views, but this does not give you a monopoly on the truth or place you on the moral high ground. Many of the subjects in your initial email are already being discussed elsewhere on Gransnet, except I deduce from your reply to a previous post from me that you only read and post on this thread, my apologies if I misunderstood your reply.

If the thread on climate change dies it doesn't mean people don't care about it, it means they have assimilated the awareness into their normal lives and it just underlies and informs their attitudes so that aspects of it from fuel economy to sustainable living are incorporated to such threads as 'Recycling and growing your own', a recent one on whether our heating was turned on or off and the 56 threads under the overall Environment heading

I was on my lunch break so didn't have much time to answer fully and was perhaps guilty of being flippant. flicketyB of course the areas I mentioned as being at tipping point are areas that are, "on the edge of viability" but it is these areas that will naturally go first. That is logical and you cannot use that argument to counter mine, as that would be illogical.
Yes, there are examples of areas that have suffered climatic changes in the past. But the difference this time is the speed of change and the scale.

Like carbon I am worried for my grandchildren. I hope you are right and I am wrong. I really do.

I am not sure that climate change was slower or the scale not as vast in the past, remember in the past we have descended into ice ages that took the ice sheet over the whole of Britain. Of course the whole future of the planet could be changed by climate variation, in the cold war we all knew we could be blown to smithereens at short notice, and at times, like during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, it seemed imminent, but the majority of people just got on with their normal lives, despite knowing the imminence of possible Armegedon.

We cannot foresee the future. We may all be wiped out by a killer virus by Christmas, Does that mean that there is no point in planning for Christmas in case it happens? I am aware of what could possibly lie before us but what good will worrying about it do? The best thing is to take actions to reduce your own footprint in the world and live in the present.

Well at least we can agree on your last paragraph flick

I think a lot of people have been scared off this thread by the doom and gloom alarmism, so I shall post the link to this article "Apocalypse Not" from Wired Science on another thread as well. It is quite illuminating, I think.

bags, seeing as you have made this comment, I have to say, that in my opinion a lot of people, myself included, have been "scared off this thread" by your repeated posting of links putting one side of the "debate".
When members have tried to engage you in debate, your usual response is to post more links.
This is debate that the vast majority of scientists in many, many disciplines do not think is a debate any more, but a fact. Bit like evolution.
Doesn't seem like a great topic for GN does it.

Interesting point about the links, jess, and you may be right that people don't like them, though some people have said they do, so I expect it's a bit mixed. The reason I post links is to back up what I say with scientific articles (which people may or may not agree with) which is good scientific practice. Why would you have an arguement with that?

With regard to the suggestion that I'm trying to refute established science, I suggest that you have missed the point – I've never argued against the fact of climate change and neither have any of the arguments in links I've posted, so I'm not sure what you're saying there other than that you don't like my arguments, which we'd already established a long time ago.

You seem to imply by your remarks that there is no research still going on about what we should or shouldn't be doing with regard to climate change. Given the billions of dollars being spent worldwide on research on the subject and related ones all over the globe, I'm slightly at a loss with that implication too. You're kidding yourself if you think climate science is "settled". A few small facts are settled. Scientific understanding of the whole huge, extremely complex subject of our planet's climate is in its infancy. There's a hell of a lot we simply do not know yet. Anyone who says otherwise would appear to be deluded.

Bags well I like your links and find it reassuring to read the opposite views of disparate scientists.

I have always been sceptical about the "man-made" tag on climate change. I do think climatic variations take place but they always have done. The Romans grew wine in the north of England for example and why was "Greenland" so called by the Vikings? The ice age has already been mentioned on this thread too.

So please carry on posting your links Bags - some of us appreciate them!

Thanks, gaga, for confirming what I had gathered from other comments and for the encouragement.

jess, I'd like to challenge your suggestion that my arguments about the degree to which humans affect climate change is in the same category as the crackpot creationist arguments against evolution. If I was the type to take offence, I'd be insulted, but actually I'm shocked at what you imply on your behalf as it suggest to me rather shallow thinking, which you don't show on other subjects. People who claim evolution is not true are, as I said above, crackpot creationists and similar. Why? Because there is nigh on 150 years' worth of evidence in support of evolution and nothing but ancient myths to counter it. The articles I link to about climate change are not written by crackpots, but by scientists. Many of the papers are published in scientitifc journals. Other writers are previous environmental campaigners who, because of scientific research, have changed their minds about the apocalyptic view that some people take of climate change.

I suspect that you made that silly comparison because of the widely quoted "97% of scientists agree with anthropogenic climate change" meme. Here are some inconvenient facts about that:

The 97% number is easily dismissed. It comes from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Strangely, the researchers chose to eliminate almost all the scientists from the survey and so ended up with only 77 people, 75 of whom, or 97%, thought humans contributed to climate change.

Besides the fact that, with tens of thousands of climate scientists in the world, 77 is a trivial sample size, the survey coordinators did not ask respondents how much humans had contributed to climate change. The poll is therefore meaningless.

In reality, no one knows, or even currently can know, what the “consensus” is in the world climate science community. This is because there has never been a meaningful, comprehensive worldwide poll about the topic among the thousands of scientists who specialize in the many relevant disciplines.

Scientific theories are never proven by a show of hands, of course. Otherwise, the Earth would still be considered flat and space travel impossible. It is indeed those who go against the flow—independent, original thinkers –who are usually responsible for our most meaningful advances in science.

“It is in the admission of ignorance and the admission of uncertainty that there is a hope for the continuous motion of human beings in some direction that doesn’t get confined, permanently blocked, as it has so many times before in various periods in the history of man.” – Richard Feynman

"I think a lot of people have been scared off this thread by the doom and gloom alarmism" .... possibly?
Can't think of any other reason???

I am fascinated by all the perspectives, although I rarely have much to offer as the subject of climate change is so contentious that every day something else comes along to push the argument somewhere else. I honestly don't know where to go to nail my colours to the mast, so I remain a floating voter.

Not convinced that a lot of people are put off the thread. I write where I choose, and follow threads that interest me, as I'm sure others do. If i don't like a thread, I go elsewhere. No problem

I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have no academic background in this field, but you know what, my take on climate change is just as valuable and comes from a deep belief that it's a natural progression of natures own making. Our planet is very accommodating in how we humans evolve, regardless of what we throw at it. Living with that whilst using our understanding, sensibility and awareness,and owning that, needs to be recognised. The future of our planet needs to been held with care, but with open arms and a continuing curiosity.

Thanks for the link B

Butter You are wise. You always lift my spirits.

Well said, Butter.

butternut

I came back to this thread to pass on Bags' link, but she had already done it.

On my posting on the 'Apocalypse Not' thread I referred to a current general belief in Scientific Infallability. If a Scientist says something it must be true because they are a scientist. To begin with the description 'Scientist' is a very generalised description for a large swathe of disciplines, like 'Engineer', but if there were technical problems with an aircraft I was about to fly in I really woudnt feel safe if a civil engineer was consulted on the problem, I would have much more confidence in the expertise of an aeronautical engineer.

Science consists of putting forward theories that seem provable in their time but can be superceded when further research is done. There are also incompetent and fraudulent scientists around, Lysenko is the most egregious, but also the Korean Scientist who fabricated his research into cloning, and the work of Andrew Wakefield on the MMR to name but three very well known ones.

Much scientific work and results is surrounded by 'what ifs' and 'buts', anathema to journalism, which is why scientist are so chary of popular science. Statistics based on surveys are fine but you need to know how the sample was drawn, how it was filtered, and what were the questions before you can accept the conclusions.

On climate change we know that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been rising since the beginning of industrialisation. That is fact. That the world is going through a period of climate warming with more unstable weather and extreme weather events is also a fact. The evidence that the two are linked is debateable and it is not yet clear whether the cause of climate change is manmade or natural. That there is a 'tipping point' and we have reached it is even more debateable.

I should have added the Doom Merchants do have a very valuable use, they draw our attention to problems that may face us in the future if we do nothing about them. The problem is, when riding a high horse it is very difficult to get off and my respect for James Lovelock, the proponent of the Gaia theory, is immense because of his willingness to adapt his views and accept the necessity of nuclear power. As J M Keynes said: 'When circumstances change, I change my opinions, What do you do?'

I agree flick there is room for doom merchants, happy clappy ostriches and all shades in between.

Jodi, I think we have already established which group you belong to on another thread!

Indeed...very confusing these split/cross threads. I've pinned my colours to the mast in both threads. Just wanted to assure other posters that I'm happy to read other points of view. But do they have to be so long and deadly boring? I'm a bear of very little brain and I find it hard to maintain concentration. So as well as being an Eyore I'm a Winnie the Pooh too.

jodi