Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
GIVEN THE DRAMATIC slump in media coverage of climate change compared to two or three years ago, you could be forgiven for thinking that it must all have been a bit of a storm in a teacup, rather like the Y2K panic back in the late 90s. This impression, while understandable, could hardly be further from reality.
The decline in public and media concern about climate change is doubly puzzling, considering that extreme weather events are now occurring with a frequency and intensity greater than at any time in the century and a half for which detailed instrumental global climate records have been tracked.
2011 was a year of unparalleled weather extremes, with heatwaves, droughts, flooding and a host of other ‘natural disasters’ causing record damage from Russia to the US, Australia, across Asia and in Europe.
Ireland, thanks to its maritime location, is buffered to a degree against the most severe weather events, yet even here, disasters like the freak flooding in the Dublin area last October that left two dead and the Dundrum Shopping Centre under water are recurring with ominous regularity.
Across the continental US, almost 3,000 monthly weather records were smashed in 2011. Severe weather events cost the US over $50billion last year. Early in 2011, unprecedented floods in Australia covered an area almost twice the size of France.
In fact, the 13 warmest years since global records began in the 19th century have all occurred since 1998. This year will almost certainly continue this trend. Even though 2012 is only a few days old, this can be predicted with a high degree of confidence. I can also predict that 2012 will see another tumultuous year of weather extremes right across the globe. And next year may well be worse again…
Given that Met Eireann struggles to predict the weather here on this one small island more than a handful of days ahead, how can I be so sure about projections months, even years ahead and right around the globe?
The answer is surprisingly simple: global average temperatures are rising rapidly, and human activities are the main driver. Last year, we pumped yet another 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2), a powerful ‘greenhouse’ gas, into the atmosphere.
Year after year, tens of billions of tonnes of CO2 arising from burning of fossil fuels make their way into the atmosphere, where they remain for hundreds, even thousands of years into the future. As this layer of invisible heat-trapping gases thickens, so the global temperature rises, slowly but inevitably.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in its landmark 2007 report, warned that if carbon emissions were not quickly and drastically reduced, the world would face ever-worsening weather disasters, leading within decades towards a global environmental catastrophe on a scale not witnessed in recorded human history.
The IPCC’s warnings have gone unheeded, and carbon emissions are now running at levels well beyond the IPCC’s “worst case” scenario figures, which projected a cataclysmic 4C rise in global average temperatures this century.
The obsession among the media and politicians with the economic crisis has blindsided us to a rapidly unfolding environmental tragedy that is on course to demolish the world economy (which depends entirely on natural resources) and plunge billions of us into crushing poverty as well as drastically diminishing biological diversity on this planet for millennia. Unstoppable sea level rises will, in time, wipe most of today’s coastal settlements from the map of the world.
Scientists have a name for all of this: The Sixth Extinction. The very survival of millions of species now hangs in the balance, chief among them the genus homo sapiens, a young species which has enjoyed global hegemony for barely a hundred centuries (the dinosaurs ruled for an impressive 160 million years).
If this all sounds like the plot from a Hollywood disaster movie, keep in mind that these projections are from the world’s most respected scientific experts and organisations. And they don’t do science fiction.
John Gibbons is a specialist environmental writer and commentator and is online at ThinkOrSwim.ie. Twitter: @think_or_swim
Excellent article John. It is about time we removed the economic blinkers and start to focus on the biggest issue of all.
I w
Sorry, pressed submit by accident. What I meant to say was:
I whole heartedly agree. Materialism and greed have gotten us to where we are now. The World needs to change.
In relative terms, humans haven’t been that long on earth, but we’ve damaged the Earth beyond repair.
I think it’s time we tuned in to the things that really matter!
We could start with abolishing obsoleteism, thought up to give all products a defined shelf life, every wonder why old stuff lasts longer? Why when light bulbs were first produced they had massive ad campaigns for 1500 to 2600 hours but this was going to make the light bulb cartels less money so they sent their engineers to design bulbs that would fail after 1000 hours. One of the first style of light bulbs made in 1897 or close is still working today in a fire station in a town in California.
This is now a know secret of early century industrialisation, where within a few short years ads ran from advertising “now lasting 2500 hours” to “Now an amazing 1000 hours!” True story. Any company making longer lasting bulbs were fined by the others for anti-competitiveness.
This was only the start of it and this Obsoletism is greatly responsible for the success of the States after WW2 where Russia were making everything to last, and never factored that people wouldn’t buy a new product until a better one came out, finally resulting in a stagnation of their economy.
Ladies tights have the same story when they were first made, they were pretty much indestructible and had to be made to only last a few uses. This all has lead to the vast waste of the Earth’s natural resources and the dumping of our waste in poor counties like Ghana where they have enormous land fills of electronic and recyclable waste polluting vast areas.
When you have an hour free, this is a nice docu about the above mentioned and brigs light to the greed and nature of capitalism and i’s often unseen side effects.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/light-bulb-conspiracy/
Humans seem to be hellbent on destroying the planet, but in the end the Earth will win. For life to continue in the best possible way then mankinds self destruction and eventual extinction is the best thing that can happen for all of nature.
Here’s some food for, the “human race” has the same characteristic as a viral bacteria. In 40 years the population as doubled, if that trend keeps up we will consume the planet. Way back then in 1974 they were worried about renewable energy and fossil fuels.
This is BS. I love science and I read all the scientific journals. There is no evidence that the changes in climate are caused by human activity. It is a natural instinct for environmentalists to blame humans. The reason that media and scientists are not talking about it anymore is not because of the recession, it’s because the argument has constantly been defeated. Solar magnetic changes are a far more likely cause of climate change.
Latest science reveals that sharp increases in global warming “precede” sharp increases in CO2–not the other way around. Global warming causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans. Current research also shows that Earth’s oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun. Yet the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) advocates, as well as the media, continue to ignore all of this, perpetuating fear and advocating spending billions of dollars on non-solutions for global warming. Although humans contribute to greenhouse gases, the overall effect is a tiny fraction compared to natural causes. To say humans are the cause of global warming; and to also make predictions that global warming will continue to increase is simply inaccurate.
Sorry John I thumbed down by mistake, I agree with you, the CO2 levels were never an issue but a means for taxing developing countries hindering their growth rate, and stealth tax. The earth is simply going through a transition phase, from the Suns recent increase in solar flares activity and the slowing down of the oceans currents and temperature drop play a far bigger role than human CO2 outputs, the very fact the US would not sign the agreement and declared the US military exempt from the taxes was all I needed to know it was brought in for alternative reasons as the US army and navy produce more CO2 than many small countries yet they their Govt were at the front for other countries to implement it.
John Daly: There is almost no way you read all the scientific journals, because the number of scientific journals is staggering and the cost of accessing them all would be phenomenal. Not to mention the sheer amount of free time needed to read them would possibly make it impossible to take the time to comment. Unless you are a special interest group who is not declaring something of course. At best, assuming you are a scientist, you read a handful pertinent to your research and keep an eye out for specific articles related to your field of research, or which just look interesting, in others. I would think that a statement like yours means you read the odd ‘popular science’ magazine and think this makes you as informed as the scientists doing the work. Which is better than just reading the chick-tracts published by anti-science groups and trusting the claims they make about the science.
I am not a climate scientist and, unlike you, I will refrain from commenting on a field I am not an expert in. These people are climate scientists though:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10
Why is the journal even posting this article. Much of the so called evidence for man made global warming was shown to have been fabricated so some scientists could get there professorships. So if ye still believe this crap it’s because ye want to believe that humans are the cause of and solution to all problems, either so ye feel ye have control over the climate change, or some sort of catholic guilt issues. Anthropocentric asses.
Ok, saying all the scientific journals was obviously a mistake. Mostly just new scientist and American scientific, which generally would cover any major scientific issues from any of the more specific science journals.
John gibbons is a specialist environmental writer, he’s never going to be able to admit that he was wrong, do to so would make him unemployed. It is the same with environmental scientists, they are enjoying their limelight and have their blinkers on. It reflects in the current state of science, where someone proposes a PhD and then will set out to prove it, whether it is right or not.
New Scientist has had a serious drop in the quality of it’s science reporting over the last few years. I don’t know why, but they seem to be giving a lot more time to pseudo-science and unfounded/unpublished dissenters than they used to. Although I may just be noticing it more. American scientific is still supposed to be okay.(I’ve stopped reading both to be honest, I get my pop-science from the internet now. Mostly because it’s so much easier to follow up on a subject, find original data and form my own opinion rather than being forced to rely on a journalists interpretation. It’s also easier to find writers who have a background in the science they’re writing about.) Pretty sure I’ve read articles in both which are pro-climate change though.
“It reflects in the current state of science, where someone proposes a PhD and then will set out to prove it, whether it is right or not.”
This isn’t the current state in science though(at least not in my experience, which I admit is both analogous and limited). PhD’s are proposed to investigate a topic of interest, not prove a point. A PhD student usually has to publish a few papers during their PhD and peer reviewers take a very dim view of falsifying or misrepresenting data. It’s a quick road to ruining your career, and that of your supervisor. (Also, just because it’s a common misconception, Peer review isn’t a round table to make sure a paper fits current thinking, It’s a (usually anonymous) pretty pedantic attempt to find every inconsistency in the logic and hole in the data.)
I understand that’s how the PhD system is supposed to work, I believe it fails in certain cases, especially when an entire department are biased towards a certain causation. It seems to me that the amount of scientists getting caught fabricating data is increasing substantially. Now this may be due to increased pressure to perform, or the Internet allowing much more peer review, or many other reasons, but in general they confess that the pressure to produce positive results drove them to falsify results.
John Daly, you clearly DON’T read all the scientific journals because if you did you would know the concensus in the literature is that changing climate is augmented by anthropogenic activity. Perhaps you should read all 3 IPCC reports (compiles all peer-reviewed research on relevant topics but you already knew this I assume) as a starter point then come back and argue your point.
John Daly, if you read all the scientific journals, then it shouldn’t be too much trouble for you to cite one peer-reviewed article that supports one or both of your main claims, i.e.
a) there is no evidence that the changes in climate are caused by human activity (presumably such an article would show that all the previously adduced evidence was faulty in some way);
b) solar magnetic changes are a far more likely cause of climate change than increases in greenhouse gases.
Time for a tax on climate change deniers?
I really dont believe the global warming claim, not because of co2 anyway, records have shown that we were at our highest levels of Co2 during the peak of the Ice-Age’s. Of coarse the world might be getting warmer but really its not on a the scale that they are predicting because if Co2.
You obviously have a doctorate in the field and years of research under your belt to know better than the scientists on this one.
Orion, it simply isn’t a disagreement any more. 97% of the worlds scientists agree that CO2 causes global warming and man causes CO2. See http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm for more info.
As for things were different in the ice age – well yes they were: http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm
“highest levels of Co2 during the peak of the Ice-Age’s”
ever wonder why it started getting warmer from that point on?
Given our over dependance on fossil fuels all this talk of economic growth is exactly contradictory to what this planet needs. Humans have a fundamental flaw……greed. Our quest for lifestyle and wealth is so much part of our psyche that even the destruction of our own planet isn’t enough to make us think again. We are destroying our own habitat despite our intelligence.
First thing first for me on these comments, How arrogant are people to think we a re detroying the planet. no we are not, the planet has been here for 4.5 billion years, it has seen asteroid and comets hits that wiped out most life at the time, super Volcanoes i.e. yellowstone, mega tsunamis, earthquakes, totally covered in ice, (snowball earth), more extinction events than you can shake a stick at… and we think we are destroying the planet? no no the planet will be fine, it’s the people who a f**cked!
George carlin had a very funny routine about this
p.s. It’s not only this planet that is heating up, all the planets in the solar system are also.. here is only one of many, many articles
http://www.livescience.com/1349-sun-blamed-warming-earth-worlds.html
Agreed, we are destroying the current biodiversity. Even if we do, and do ourselves in at the same time, it’ll all be back. We are a minor bump on an astronomically long road.
We are not asteroids or comets. We are supposed to be an intelligent living species. You don’t have to believe in global warming to understand that we ( one single species) are exploiting the planets resources for our own excessive comforts. Your attitude suggests we should just do what we please and let the Universe fix it.
What says in a thousand years we as a human race are going to be here Super Volcanoes and normal Volcanoes produce more toxins and Co2 on the air than the whole human race can in a year
Arrogance = ego + ignorance. You nailed it!
Sorry but when June 1st comes I want sunshine until August 31st, everything else I can take, global warming is an ongoing debate, so when the experts agree on it then I can either be scared or not so scared. Presently though I have other stuff to wreck my head.
I suggest you move further south then, we are bet on the the Atlantic coast surrounded by water and have no history of exceptional summers the like of which u aspire to …..just an opinion not a put down as I’d love the same
A suggestion & an opinion in the one reply …. Thank you sooooooomuch.
Whether or not there is an ‘ongoing debate’ depends on who you listen to. If you listen to the media, there is. If you listen to the scientists, there isn’t. Back as far as 2004, when this paper was written: http://www.eci.ox.ac.uk/publications/downloads/boykoff04-gec.pdf there was no debate on the issue between experts.
I’m a man suggestions and opinions is all we do
99% of climate scientists do agree that our industrial carbon emissions are the most significant cause of global warming. Contrarians seize on the views of the one percent to give themselves comfort. Bless.
97% of experts agree there’s man-made climate change… the moneyed interests try to frame it as a debate in the media but in reality there isn’t one.
I love an outsider…
It’s not really a “debate”.
Very skeptical of this climate change,the sun goes in hot/cold cycles the ocean currents go through fast/slow currents which determines our weather patterns,it is a multi billion euro way of the governments taxing us to make out were the criminals,all the super power countries dont care less bout it,it’s up to the governments of this world to change our way of living
No it’s up to everyone to start making changes.
The Sun does not go through a hot/cold cycle.
Actually the Sun does go through an 11 year cycle of cooling and heating (look up Solar Variation). There also have been large period where the amount of sunspots has dropped considerably and this have been linked to long term weather events (look up Maunder Minimum and The Little Ice Age).
That’s not to say that I don’t think humanity is contributing to the current warming event that we are experiencing but there are many variables in this pattern that we can’t control. We many find that even if we do change our ways and cut our emission that we still experience global temperature rises.
That 11-year cycle is a cycle of the magnetic fields and radiation from the sun, not of temperature. While small-scale temperature variations can occur on the sun’s photosphere they are a small percentage of the overall temperature of the star (~6,000 K) and there is no reason for it to have any effect on Earth (considering the sun can’t heat Earth by either conduction of convection).. Either way, the temperature of the sun itself is eclipsed by corona, which is between Earth and the sun. This has a temperature of around 1,000,000 K. Although the material in the corona is tenuous, it’d contribute to “direct” heating more than the surface of the sun would.
This cycle and sunspot counts have only take place over the last couple of hundred years, and considering the time scales of the Maunder cycle and even the 11-year cycle, we simply do not have enough data yet to determine a proper correlation, let alone any implication of causation.
TL;DR: I’m an astronomer and as far as we can tell sunspots and stuff do not cause heating of the Earth, but we won’t know for sure for a long, long time :P
How about mentioning the billions of tonnes of heavy metals that are being sprayed into the atmosphere A.K.A chemtrails, or the 400 weather modification stations that have been operating in the United States the past 20 years.
This article sounds like a devious shout for carbon taxing the population.
James, if you’re skeptical take a read here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Some very good research done.
James, just for my amusement can you give us a list of a few other things you are “skeptical” about?
“Climate Change” doesn’t really work as a phrase to invoke concern (nor did Global Warming) when you live on a small, wet island with a narrow temperature range. So if you suggested to someone that driving and flying are luxuries you would be met by a) I need to drive for my job b) I need a break from my job c) Ireland is so small that it doesn’t matter. Oddly enough, the Irish economy will ultimately benefit from climate change as it becomes to be seen as a safe haven from its worst effects (we’ll have to fix the drains though).
[Quote]Oddly enough, the Irish economy will ultimately benefit from climate change as it becomes to be seen as a safe haven from its worst effects (we’ll have to fix the drains though).[/Quote]
That’s all we need, fat bellied, bald headed billionaires (multiplied by hundreds) parking their yachts in our most scenic coastal villages……………..I can’t wait.
Ireland is a pretty low, flat country. There is enough ice above land masses to put us underwater if it all melts. Unlikely to get much tourism then.
Climate Change is a total farce, just read those words back to yourself. It’s just a phrase coined to grab attention and be used for Govt policies and the media.
And global warming, well how many periods has the earth had ice ages and warm periods? They could just as easily call it Global Cooling. Many times is the answer, some more severe than others, but to have the public believe we are all solely to blame for the change in current global temperatures by showing a chart of atmosphere Co2 levels since the beginning of the last century. The people pushing for this global warming initiative are the very ones making the money and controlling the current system which are still waging wars to maintain their control.
What we are doing is depleting the Earth’s resources for later generations, which is the real concern people should have.
Take a look at how much natural water is wasted making a pair of jeans or a laptop, its fighting. Thousands upon thousands of litres to make a few components we take for granted and throw away after 18 months for the next newest thing.
This is the real problem facing humanity if we and our children are to continue to live the quality life we now do, something must change.
Change can not happen however when our global economy is based on mass manufacturing and a throw away mentality, capitalism is a major cause of this.
We are depleting the Earth’s minerals that our future generations will need to build newer technology that hopefully won’t be designed with such waste in mind for the sake of making a quick profit. If we continue with the system we have, we can not survive and are thwarting any chances of humanity to prosper in the future like we have done.
Our world continuing to run on fossil fuels is the key here, whilst we rely so heavily on the petroleum industry to make so many synthetic products in every day items and use oil as a financial commodity and source of wealth, our own short sightedness and greed will be our undoing.
Damhsa, you’re fooling yourself.
As mentioned in the article Global Warming is a serious issue as it will affect the “natural resources” you mention to their detriment. A growing human population relies on food, food relies on weather. It’s not difficult to see.
Take a read here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm
I agree with you about water and mass markets though, and you didn’t even mention the rubbish piling high all over the world…
I’m not denying for a moment the fact the global climate is changing more so the fact governments are taxing us for using CO2 and the likes of blaming cows in Australia for releasing excessive methane in the air for being the sole reason and taxing farmers for it.
I really just dislike the buzzword it has become.
For I’m clearly an idiot it seems, I understand the terms climate change and global warming are different but believe one is the causation of the other, please correct me if I’m wrong here.
If the over all temperature of the Earth is increasing, this would lead to climates in different parts of the world to be altered ie. a climate change. yea/nay?
As Skeptical Science pointed out many times we are solely responsible, then why is a tax and a carbon limit all we have seen so far if the situation is so serious,and accepted.
Economics sadly looks like it still dominates how we live and face combating our CO2 output, which after the U.S. invested something like 18billion dollars a decade or so back and only came up with a few reports on the matter, for that money would it not have been better to accept early on of the spending we clearly are to blame and put a few billion into ways to reverse and reduce our footprint?
These are the things I find gripes with. Not the fact humans are playing a part in the rise in temperatures, our accelerated population growth will do nothing to help lessen this problem either but 18 billion dollars and much more since then, spent on making scientists famous for writing reports and discovering more ways to prove we are all to blame have failed to implement the use of such vast of sums of money, effort and time into finding real solutions to our problem and implementing them.
I call it a farse for this reason, our current system/situation can not but help create vast amounts of CO2, and until we change or should I say manufactures, industry’s and our economic system change I think charging us 25cent more to take a flight a tad redundant.
@ Paul Ibbs. I could say 6 of one, half dozen the other. Continuing rising temperature resulting in massive changes in access to resources and surface conditions or the land is irreparably poisoned from manufacturing will effect us equally as if we have no finite resources left for tools or energy. Question is, which comes first?
And I had every intention of adding in the enormous wastage and dumping that’s being ongoing by the developed world to poor countries like China, Ghana and is it Brazil the other well known one? I end up writing more than I usually expect so got to wrap it up somewhere.
Hmm an ingenious comment, you’ve obviously studied in depth the effect C02 emissions have on the environment and know more than the worlds leading lights. Fair play…
Jamie, loads of those ‘worlds leading light’ are financed by governments and private corporations who find this a great source of income. While I am not disputing the impact of CO2 may have on the environment, we all need to step back a bit and see recent events on a much larger scale. We need to consider forces beyond our control (like solar activity) as well…
@David
Which ones? They generally work in universities.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/dec/21/banksy-copenhagen-regents-canal
Banksy hits the mark.
if we recycled as much “crap” as we spouted, the world would be a better place
Supposedly Columbus once threatened a local tribe in America who stopped feeding his people as Euro novelty wore off that he would take away the moon unless the villagers kept providing for his people. Columbus knew an eclipse was coming and used this knowledge to bluff and blackmail them. It worked, the primitive locals got scared when the moon disappeared for a while and kept feeding Columbus’ crew.
See, they were simple uneducated tribesmen confronted with scientific knowledge.
Today our politicians tell us that there will be a global disaster unless we give them money in the form of a CO2 tax and use unhealthy, Mercury-containing fluorescent lightbulbs instead of normal bulbs.
The politicians know the climatic cycles of the Earth and use them to bluff and blackmail us to achieve their goals.
See, we are an educated modern crowd, not a jungle tribe yet we are naive enough to believe that crap.
Even if they were right, even if human-generated CO2 is harmful for the planet (which I don’t believe it is), there is no way that CO2 taxes are going to stop this. This is just another scam designed to rip naive tribesmen off.
It has been a while since I read Columbus’ extracted journals but if my memory serves this supposed story is a later invention. I could be wrong of course.
I suspect that the average politician has no more knowledge on this matter than the average person and so without the in-depth knowledge I doubt they have real ability to properly blackmail the populace.
I’m not a scientist but I will say two things. Firstly, extreme weather events generally kill most people when they occur in combination with human error. If we had a proper drainage system in Dublin the two unfortunate victims would probably still be alive. The carnage in the Philippines over Christmas was apparently caused by illegal logging. Okay point one made.
Second point: It’s interesting that no one has mentioned the elephant in the room of our exponentially expanding global population. Frankly infinite expansion in numbers and time lead to rather unpleasant outcomes. Before climate change there was Malthus.
Global warming serves one purpose…. To collect tax……
I go by one rule. When mother nature wants to change her dress you or I are not going to stop her.
I for one am looking forward to growing bananas and pineapples out my back it would be a nice change from
Potatoes and carrots:)
Thanks John and Pat – you saved me a headache and did a better job than I could have – enjoyed your comments. Its heartening to hear some rational people and not just the same old conspiracy theorist shower with no real scientific interest or knowledge.
Everything has a scientific explantion – Read on
The following is an actual question given on a University of Arizona chemistry mid term, and an actual answer turned in by a student.
The answer by one student was so ‘profound’ that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle’s Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God.’
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.
economic growth is the problem..not the solution to our problems
I totally believe in global warming / cooling / change. All 4 billion years of it and counting.
greenman3610 on youtube does a great job of relaying the facts on climate change.
General overview of the evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&feature=channel_video_title
The extent of the effects from raising average global temperatures can be debated but it’s hard to argue that it’s not happening and it’s not man-made.
There is no climate problems, remember climategate! The planet goes through its own cycles and its still recovering from the ice age, hence melting ice caps. Complete crap!!
“Remember Climategate?” Indeed I do, but do you? If so, you will also remember the FIVE independent investigations, in the US and UK arising from “Climategate”. If so, you’ll know that all five entirely vindicated the science and proved Climategate to be a politically motivated smear campaign. To use your own phrase: “Compete Crap”!
Exonn Mobil help fund the research that challenges the majority scientific view that the cause of global warming is 90% due to industrial emissions. That fact on its own should give any doubter pause for thought.
If Climategate is all you remember you need to update yourself a bit: http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Basically one thing governments super powers or anybody else in this world cannot do is influence mother natures ability to provide a balance and she will do it irrespective of time person or place, she’s done it before she’ll do it again ‘simples’
Another example of journal.ie allowing sensationalism creep into their publishing “plunge billions of us into crushing poverty”, I’m not quite sure about this because there is no reason given as to how this will happen. Weather is being proved more and more to be cyclical, I’m denying the greenhouse effect but little media attention is being given to the other side of the coin/argument.
CORRECTION – I’m NOT denying the greenhouse effect
James Delingpole? Poor Jonathan, that scraping noise you can hear is the bottom of the barrel, old pal. Delingpole is as mad as a hatter; to be fair to him, he pretty much acknowledges as much. His grip on science facts is even more tenuous than his grip on reason.
As he explained in a BBC television interview last January: “It’s not my job to sit down and read, ah, ah, ah, peer reviewed papers, because I simply haven’t go the time or the scientific expertise. What I rely on is people who have got the time and the expertise to do it…I am an interpreter of interpretations”.
http://www.thinkorswim.ie/?p=1295
Yup, Jonathan, your kind of expert alright!
To be fair, Delingpole has made a nice living out climate change deniers.
Whatever the cause you cant deny the temperature readings. The globe has always experienced climate change. Places that are deserts now were once tropical rainforests and grassy plains.
We have a massive ocean on our side. With rising temps this will mean more weather events like the recent floods. More severe storms. Thats what happens when temp increase.
We ignored the warnings about economy. With so many people now in the world where would they go if thousands of people were displaced due to coastal flooding. Conflicts could ensue. It is a very real threat. And unlike the economy you cant just default and start again.
I wonder what the source of this writer’s fantasies is? The climate is changing no more dramatically than it ever has. Seems like usual party line green hysteria/alarmism to me.
For facts:
For some very persuasive arguments about why climate contrarians are wrong see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/12we24.htm
My fantasies are shared by the UK Royal Society, the US National Academy of Sciences, and their equivalent bodies in France, Russia, Italy, Spain, Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, China, Poland, Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Finland, Belgium, etc. etc etc. And by every multinational science agency on the planet, including the IPCC, UNEP, and, strangely enough, by those renowned green fantasists in the US military. I see your icon reads ‘conservative’. Which part of ‘conservation’ don’t you conservatives understand?
Scientific knowledge is not the property of the ‘left’ or the ‘right’. The breakthrough technologies that gave us satellite communications, radar, GPS, smartphones, the internet, etc. etc. came about through scientific understanding and collaboration, through teasing out and solving complex scientific issues. This process takes years, even decades, and involves thousands of scientists pooling their work, challenging one another, correcting flaws and exposing flawed thinking when it emerges. This is how science is done. It’s not about ‘opinion’ or hurling ideological brickbats, it’s about establishing how and why thing work, and improving and deepening our understanding of the natural world and our role in it. Dissing science puts you in with real fantasists like the Luddites and the Creationists.
Damhsa
Your reasoning is a text book example of the The Dunning–Kruger effect. This is a cognitive bias “in which unskilled people make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes”. There’s a lot of this about.
And whilst you’re reading Damhsa, take a look at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ for some enlightening information.
Thank you John, for I previously hadn’t a name for my now diagnosed condition.
I would also like to ask you do you believe we are solely responsible for the current rise in global temperatures or could you accept there is possibly more than one factor at play here, in regard to the climate of the earth and its history of climate change before the industrial revolution?
The fact your twitter account leads to “Think or Swim” all about climate change, I’ll grovel now at your irrefutable wisdom and humbly ask for your judgement of my ignorance to be kindly moderated so as not to upset my fragile mindset further.
I don’t have all the time in the world to dedicate to maintaining a website for such things when the thought and gesture is noble and I applaud it, the way the world seems to work does not lead it to solve “our predicament” any time soon.
Not for want of trying, I find issue with how it is presented to the public and we end up paying daft charges for every day travel some how supposedly creating a small solution to the problem??!
I see it as more a money making racket and at a time when many people could do without further taxes for getting to work and heating their homes, the very fact the industries as you say that oppose and fund the “anti climate change” movement are also the biggest obstacle the population have in combating it as they have control of the ball so to speak.
If we can move from fossil fuels in the morning do you not think we the populace would if given the choice and in financially possible means do so?
As ignorant as I may appear, I’d have to say yes we would but then again I wake up and realize our very present day world around us is based on releasing CO2 one way or another and those supplying the means for us to do so control the release of technology that could do away with that.
So to wrap my silly little defense up to my opinions, to stop humans releasing CO2,
a) We need to knock off a few billion people.
b.) Find and implement a means for the worlds economies to continue if we move from fossil fuels and not have it so deeply connected to the price of said fossil fuels.
c.) Many things must be in place before such notions could become a reality or it will all go to hell in a hand-basket ie. all currently made synthetic materials and processes which burn/use fossil fuels need to be replaces or have the technology in place for when we switch away.
d) Face reality that non of us have the ability or insanely massive funding needed to create and release a technology that would do away with emitting CO2.
Until energy and tech corporations/policy makers grow a heart for mankind and release its grip on scientists and engineers idea’s and fund their ability to carry out such research, we are not going to make much advancements asking them to give up such control but find ourselves presently “doing a little” by paying for the privilege of emiting CO2 while trying our best to travel and exist less.
Whatever happened to the Ozone Hole and Acid Rain of the 80′s? Can’t tax them so there’s no use in talking about them.
Climate changes – That’s what it does! If it didn’t then I would worry.
Nature has a way of fixing itself and it’s far superior to man’s ability to destroy himself.
When the earth was formed there were unquantifiable amounts of CO2 Sulphur Dioxide and many other toxic gases released by volcanoes etc… Where are they now – and without the help of mankind???
Damage to Ozone Layer mainly stopped due to world wide cohesive action in banning CFC’s. Problem solved. It was not a case of letting Nature do its thing. The Ozone Layer still has a hole but it appears to have stopped growing and will eventually repair itself because we have allowed it time to recover. Acid Rain still happens and is mainly caused by industrial pollution. The long term effects of clean air acts in the western world have made it so that it doesn’t really happen around here much any more.
I think we need to take another look at some of the points being made here. Yes, there is absolutely no doubt that Mother Nature will create an equilibrium when we have all departed this Planet, however we manage to do it. Many of the reasons for taking Climate Change seriously is the misery it will cause millions of us while we try to live “normal” lives in the future. It’s futile to argue that the Earth will fix itself, of course it will.
even if man’s actions are having no effect on the earth’s climate this is no reason to suspend criticicm of our society and how it functions. what we like to call democtratic capitalism is responsible for extreme poverty leading to a multitude of preventable early deaths, indescribable over-use and abuse of the worlds resources, including those below, on and above the surface leading to severe degradation of our environment (check out santiago, chile or mexico city to get an admittely extreme couple of examples), and a rise of mental illnesses of all sorts as naturally social human animals must learn to adapt to meaningless and hopeless lives so that a few people who claim to own everything can maintain their dream of power. in my opinion argument enough to be at least critical and give space to alternative ideas for our world and that which we bequeath to future generations.
however, if the climate is being adversely affected by man’s actions, and we continue to dismiss this as an outrageous claim so that we can continue in our wanton abuse, how do we gain exactly? if, on the other hand, we try and adapt ourselves to the earth rather than the other way around, and try, as people here have commented, to utilise resources intelligently and with a long-term, inclusive, co-operative perspective, who stands to lose out?
Pay your carbon taxes then and separate your coloured glass recycling and feel smug in believing you are saving the world, good for you.
Exchanging pieces of printed paper (polluting the environment with toxic chemicals in the process) thinking you are saving the world is just as illogical as some of the crazy comments here and those spout on about any opposing idea as bonkers conspiracy’s crap. Some are, some are not.
Co2 is only 1 factor to influence the Earth’s climate, either lowering or raising it, Co2 acts as an excellent refrigerant as it reflects heat in either direction. If we are outputting more of it on the surface, it is then blocking more of the suns heat reaching us. Then would it not be acting in the opposite way than contributing to global warming? I’m just saying. People cant pronounce most of the other gases that effect the suns ability to heat the oceans and Earth’s surface so CO2 is the one chosen.
Either way I only wish to highlight that it is not all to do with Co2 and not all man’s fault for icebergs to be melting and stranded polar bears, just too many people apply their critical thinking to only government backed research that benefits their current policies or position while dismissing anything that opposes this. I believe both sides need be giving weight and considered upon while giving merit and thought, for and against.
Christopher Booker is a notorious liar, spouting rubbish about everything from asbestos to global warming. The Telegraph disgraces itself by giving him editorial space. No one who is serious about this topic pays any attention to the rantings of neoliberal fundamentalists and energy industry shills.
bpdeasy, that BP doesn’t stand for what I think it does, does it?
It’s simply not an argument anymore, global warming is occurring and human activity is the cause of it – scientists simply don’t debate that point anymore: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
Excellent article. But I think you’re misusing the term ‘sixth extinction’. It doesn’t just refer to global climate change, but to many skivvies humans have been engaging in for thousands of years.
” it’s hard to argue that it’s not happening and it’s not man-made.’ – in spite of no evidence that it is man made?
The global warming thesis relies on the considerable amount of accumulated evidence which points to our industrial emissions as the primary cause. It was the same evidential approach that first linked smoking to lung cancer and you wouldn’t find too many contrarians to that association.
There is no argument amongst scientists any more that it’s not man made: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
A classic video from George Carlin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BB0aFPXr4n4&feature=youtube_gdata_player
H.A.A.R.P.
W.R.O.N.G.
What warming? Latest news:
This warming:
have your say