Man-made climate change is done for. Dead.

[Badjelly]

Climate Change is an incontrovertible fact.

Always has been. There've been much bigger swings in climate over short periods of time in the past and their will be in the future.

The only certainty about the current perceived climate change is that people still suffer from the hubris that people matter. Organisms have changed the climate before and they'll do it again. Once a cycle of change is started your best bet is to adapt, whihc may well involve changing how we live.

But. No one alive today will give clothing made with artificial fibres, convenient transport (public transport isn't green), or figure out a way of significantly reducing the distance food travels from production to plate, or change the packaging it comes in. Until people actively start living within the space they can walk in a day things won't change.

The other thing that irks me particularly is the attempt to present climate change as a black and white cause and effect scenario. Mt Pinatubo did massive climate damage and interupted the La Nina, El Nino pattern which had a flow on effect of accelerating imbalances in phyto and zooplankton causing algal blooms and damaging the sustainability of over-fished fishing grounds. Not that any country or corporate body manages fish stocks in the first instance.

No one gives a crap though, because that was obviously not a Volcanao that caused the problem because it didn't squirt enough CO2 into the atmosphere to cause the problem in the first instance. Because only CO2 is bad, right? You get huge changes in albedo if you squirt, for instance aerosol Sulphiric acid into the sky. Something Mt Pinatubo eruptions are very good at.

James, James, sometimes I despair, I really do.

CO2 is not the only thing that matters. No one said it was. Really.

The role of volcanoes in cooling the planet for a few years by emitting SO2 has been known for a few decades. When Pinatubo erupted the climate modellers saw it as a marvellous opportunity to test their models with regard to the size of the effect. The models got it right.

Maybe Pinatubo in the early 1990s did set off the monster El Nino in 1998. I've heard this suggested before.

Why are you so sure people don't matter? We have, in the last 150 years, caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise to levels not seen for the last several million. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't, but why is it hubris to think it might?

[vtec]

Saying climate change isn't happening or is not man-made is the same as the ostriches who said that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, or that the world is flat.

I am sick of all these nutters hellbent on promoting the illusion that there is still a "debate" about climate change. Because the deniers know that as long as the public thinks that the scientists aren't sure about it, the public won't be concerned about it and nobody will be arsed doing anything.

Hmmm, you my dear friend are one of the religious zealots of AGW. Belief and faith belong only in religion. In science fact is much harder to facilitate and I'm afraid that it does actually include a component of debate. In your own argument you bring up the world is flat, people were executed for providing evidence against a flat earth because of similar zealotry.

Just because the media has been pushing AGW, (now changed to climate change) doesn't mean it's true. I'm still waiting for conclusive evidence. I've done a lot of research. There's evidence for and against, a fair portion of both tarnished with an agenda and a statistical goal similar to that which ACC have provided to forge their case against motorcyclists.

[James Deuce]

James, James, sometimes I despair, I really do.

CO2 is not the only thing that matters. No one said it was. Really.

The role of volcanoes in cooling the planet for a few years by emitting SO2 has been known for a few decades. When Pinatubo erupted the climate modellers saw it as a marvellous opportunity to test their models with regard to the size of the effect. The models got it right.

Maybe Pinatubo in the early 1990s did set off the monster El Nino in 1998. I've heard this suggested before.

Why are you so sure people don't matter? We have, in the last 150 years, caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise to levels not seen for the last several million. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't, but why is it hubris to think it might?

No need to despair. The only reason you are is because you're not reading the correct level of sarcasm into my post. Read it again.

[Quasievil]

Priceless, mate.

And if anything comes up that challenges your armour of denial, you can always say "only 1.9% of CO2 is emitted by man" like a medieval peasant holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. That should keep you safe.

I've spouted endless facts and figures about the whole subject and frankly speaking its a waste of my time, clearly there are two sides to the debate and both sides are strong in their views which is fair enough.

But

1/ the day you can tell me how it is that increasing the taxes the Mum and Dads pay under this ETS scam is going to save the planet is the day I will convert.........this is my main issue with it.

2/ The Day you can tell me how it is that Taxes like this can become legislated while the science is NOT proven will again have me converted

3/ If in ten or even 20 years time you can tell me that the Climate change (which is natural) has been rectified due to this ETS scam and Taxes is the day I will buy you a new Ducati

I know full well that you and others treat this like a religion, that's why Im over it and cant be bothered preaching to the hardened nutter's

you simply cannot see whats going on can you.........its not about global warming bro ...................hello !!

[Badjelly]

Forgot to respond this...

But. No one alive today will give up clothing made with artificial fibres, convenient transport (public transport isn't green), or figure out a way of significantly reducing the distance food travels from production to plate, or change the packaging it comes in. Until people actively start living within the space they can walk in a day things won't change.

Could be. I think there's scope for much more change at much less cost than you think, but, hey, what do I know?

[vtec]

James, James, sometimes I despair, I really do.

CO2 is not the only thing that matters. No one said it was. Really.

The role of volcanoes in cooling the planet for a few years by emitting SO2 has been known for a few decades. When Pinatubo erupted the climate modellers saw it as a marvellous opportunity to test their models with regard to the size of the effect. The models got it right.

Maybe Pinatubo in the early 1990s did set off the monster El Nino in 1998. I've heard this suggested before.

Why are you so sure people don't matter? We have, in the last 150 years, caused the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere to rise to levels not seen for the last several million. Maybe that matters, maybe it doesn't, but why is it hubris to think it might?

There's a lot of evidence showing that CO2 in the atmosphere increases following an increase in the temperature of the earth. The earth also begins to cool before the peaks in CO2 in history. The effectiveness of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is far weaker than most people realise.

Methane is 20x more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

It's only hubris to say conclusive that CO2 is the devil, and that debate will not be entered into.

[Badjelly]

There's a lot of evidence showing that CO2 in the atmosphere increases following an increase in the temperature of the earth. The earth also begins to cool before the peaks in CO2 in history...

I don't want to spin this debate/discussion out forever (and you don't get points on Kiwibiker for having the last word) but ... the observation that CO2 lags temperature in the past (by 800 years, plus or minus):

• suggests that temperature affects CO2 but doesn't show that CO2 doesn't affect temperature
• doesn't imply that the recent rise in CO2 is natural

[Winston001]

Saying climate change isn't happening or is not man-made is the same as the ostriches who said that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, or that the world is flat.

Ostriches get AIDS?? Dang. Whodda thought.

The only certainty about the current perceived climate change is that people still suffer from the hubris that people matter. Organisms have changed the climate before and they'll do it again. Once a cycle of change is started your best bet is to adapt, whihc may well involve changing how we live.

But. No one alive today will give up clothing made with artificial fibres, convenient transport (public transport isn't green), or figure out a way of significantly reducing the distance food travels from production to plate, or change the packaging it comes in. Until people actively start living within the space they can walk in a day things won't change.

Yes the climate change debate has derailed the real issue which is stopping pollution. Having said that, from what I read man's contribution to greenhouse gases is about 4%. Doesn't sound much but cumulatively year on year it has an effect.

I also think its getting all too hard. The wealthy nations won't give up their lifestyle when it comes to the nitty gritty. There are some astonishing new technologies being discovered but its a long way from the lab to our house......

[mashman]

And if anything comes up that challenges your armour of denial, you can always say "only 1.9% of CO2 is emitted by man" like a medieval peasant holding up a cross to ward off a vampire. That should keep you safe.

Removed and sent as PM to the Science Bully hiding behind his Science

[Indiana_Jones]

Saying climate change isn't happening or is not man-made is the same as the ostriches who said that the HIV virus doesn't cause AIDS, or that the world is flat.

I am sick of all these nutters hellbent on promoting the illusion that there is still a "debate" about climate change. Because the deniers know that as long as the public thinks that the scientists aren't sure about it, the public won't be concerned about it and nobody will be arsed doing anything.

How dare someone have a different opinion then your own one!

-Indy

[James Deuce]

Forgot to respond this...



Could be. I think there's scope for much more change at much less cost than you think, but, hey, what do I know?

Don't ever lose sight of the fact less cost is a disincentive for the people who can change things. This is at the core of the ETS.

If it isn't making obscene amounts of money for someone it isn't happening. Contrary to popular belief individuals do not have the power to change anything vis-a-vis climate because it isn't in the interest of local and national governments, and multi-national corporations to do so.

The change the HAS to happen is philosophical and cultural, not physical or financial.

[MisterD]

It's a conspiracy!

[vtec]

I don't want to spin this debate/discussion out forever (and you don't get points on Kiwibiker for having the last word) but ... the observation that CO2 lags temperature in the past (by 800 years, plus or minus):

• suggests that temperature affects CO2 but doesn't show that CO2 doesn't affect temperature
• doesn't imply that the recent rise in CO2 is natural

First point, it is some evidence towards CO2 not affecting temperature, because by the GHG CO2 devil theory, there's no way the planet should have been able to cool while CO2 in the atmosphere was increasing, and yet throughout history it does. This is however as you have pointed out not proof, just evidence.

Second point, wouldn't matter if CO2 is proven to largely not affect temperature. Just to throw some fear in the opposite direction, some people are concerned about the next ice age, and I have read proposals to increase Greenhouse gases to prevent much more horrific event (although not seen as an event due to timescale), but unless we master fusion energy there could be a large reduction in the human population, and as far south as New Zealand is would render it largely unusable. http://www.iceagenow.com/

I feel that these changes are all within the earths ability to balance out as has happened for many millions of years. The biosphere of the earth has dealt with things far more impressive than Carbon Dioxide, and has dealt with much higher levels of CO2 many times in the past.

This article about the icebergs approaching NZ makes me laugh.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Hundreds_of...ew_Zealand.htm
I also thought it strange, that icebergs reaching NZ when they usually melt long before can be pointed at by the media as more signs of AGW. But then if you say climate change instead, then that fits better, covers you for both cold and hot events, you can't lose. It's like flipping a coin with heads on both sides and saying heads every time.

[Jantar]

....I also thought it strange, that icebergs reaching NZ when they usually melt long before can be pointed at by the media as more signs of AGW.

Not strange at all. Just change the name of Global Warming to Climate Change. Then when its heating up, thats global warming, and when its cooling down thats climate change. The record cold temperatures recorded in many parts of the world over the last 6 months are proof of Climate Change, and because the warmers have defined climate change as being the same as global warming then the colder it gets the more warming there must be.

[nudedaytona]

Hmmm, you my dear friend are one of the religious zealots of AGW. Belief and faith belong only in religion. In science fact is much harder to facilitate and I'm afraid that it does actually include a component of debate. In your own argument you bring up the world is flat, people were executed for providing evidence against a flat earth because of similar zealotry.

Just because the media has been pushing AGW, (now changed to climate change) doesn't mean it's true. I'm still waiting for conclusive evidence. I've done a lot of research. There's evidence for and against, a fair portion of both tarnished with an agenda and a statistical goal similar to that which ACC have provided to forge their case against motorcyclists.

Science is imperfect, and I am not against debate about the details of climate change. My point is that the climate change deniers try and grab every scrap of material to push an agenda that climate change is not happening or is not man made. The stolen emails is a case in point. If the deniers had any real evidence - i.e. peer reiviewed, credible publications - against Anthropogenic Global Warming they would be trumpeting that, not some stolen emails which prove nothing. The deniers always want "more proof" so they can sit on their backside instead of contributing.

I admit that I was guilty of the attitude that climate change wasn't a big deal or not something I needed to worry about. But now that my girlfriend is pregnant I have to start thinking about the future for our son or daughter.

I think we won't know everything about climate change for some time. But that doesn't mean it's not happening. For instance, we don't know everything about cancer. But people die of cancer every day. We don't know completely why Rossi is so good. But Rossi wins. So at some point us non-scientists have to make up our minds and decide whether you want to do something about it. And, as far as I can tell, the sooner we act the less costly it will be for all of us.