Dont Give Up, Do They?

[Svejk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33006179

[youngmafbog]

The problem is that data can be (and is) manipulated to suite whatever cause you want to bang on about.

Truth is, the World is constantly changing and Pangaea is slowly reforming. Movement of this scale will cause changes in the Climate.

Whether or not man is contributing is very debatable, but if anyone thinks man is stronger than Nature then they are a fool.

[Gromit]

Global Warming is a theory. It is constantly being modified as scientific techniques advance, and as the science improves.

It is not set in stone as the people who flatly refuse it may be a possibility, are

[jim360]

Depends what you mean by "stronger". Obviously nature can throw at us more still than we can at it. But in fact it is also clear that man can, and does, affect nature in some very profound ways. I find it hard to believe that people still cannot accept that we can make a difference, and a negative one at that. In so many ways we have disrupted natural processes. Be it our scouring of the oceans, or our wholesale destruction of entire species, our massive deforestation efforts, our invention of totally un-natural chemicals, the way in which we have changed and moulded the landscape around us in a manner never before seen. Of course we have had an effect. There is no debate about that.

[Svejk]

I like the way they keep changing the way they collect/meaning of data to justify their view/wages.

[ichkeria]

I thought that was the whole point of science. Modifying theory on the basis of experiment and data

[Svejk]

You weren't around in the 70s jim, when they used to show a picture of the Atacama and say 'This is what Kent will look like by the turn of the century'. Lol.

[jim360]

The problem is that, unlike almost any other area of science, the changes and modifications and reinterpretations of data take place so much more publicly when it comes to Climate science. It's a shame, because people can -- and do -- seize on each reinterpretation as evidence that the entire idea is baloney. It is not.

It's a damned shame, really. The future of the planet is at stake -- makes it sound more dramatic than I wanted it to, but the point is that whatever happens in the next couple of centuries or so to the climate need not have happened, and . On the other side of it, live will eventually go on of course, but in the short term things will change and not necessarily for the better.

The climate lobby has not helped itself by being too dramatic at times. It is hard to take something seriously when it is apparently warning of imminent apocalypses that don't then materialise. What's happened is that politics then gets mixed up into the thing, too, meaning more spin and more overstating of the case and so on.

Nevertheless, the big picture of man-induced short-term climate change is a reality and no longer up for debate. It would be a dreadful mistake to ignore the situation and carry on as before. We have to alter our habits and the way in which we use natural resources, and stop being so short-sighted as to assume that nothing we do ever matters.

[mushroom25]

//The future of the planet is at stake //

err, no it isn't. whatever effects we have on the planet will, in the general scheme of things, be geologically short term, and the planet's systems - and its inhabitants - will adapt. in millions of years there may be no evidence that man existed, but the planet will still be here.

what's at risk is our current lifestyle, which is wholly unsustainable unless fundamental changes are made soon.

[jim360]

If you read on in that paragraph you will have seen that I sort of retracted that statement already. At the time I couldn't think of a better way to put it. Perhaps I should say "*Our* future on the planet is at stake"?

[youngmafbog]

Our future on the planet is definitely at stake, but probably not by our doing.

The Universe is a big powerful beast and it will do what it wants.

One thing is for certain, eventually we will be hit by something and that will be curtains for mankind. But the planet will recover and reform (So long as the atmosphere is not totally destroyed and the water evaporates away.

//It is not set in stone as the people who flatly refuse it may be a possibility, are//

By flatly refuse to believe it I suppose you mean those who have an open mind and are not blinkered by some lefty liberal thought process?

[jim360]

Have you ever considered having an open mind about the possibility that "blinkered left liberal thought processes" may sometimes happen upon the truth? Just a thought...

"Our future on the planet is definitely at stake, but probably not by our doing."

This may be true. The danger of a massive collision that causes devastation on the scale that wiped out the dinosaurs is real. On the other hand, there is nothing we can do about that really. It's out of our control. The way in which we abuse the environment and natural resources is very much within our control. So let's, I don't know, try and do something to curb our excesses. It seems sensible to try and fix the things you can fix, no?

[youngmafbog]

//Have you ever considered having an open mind about the possibility that "blinkered left liberal thought processes" may sometimes happen upon the truth? Just a thought... //

My mind is open, if proved beyond doubt I will believe it. But when it is used as a toll to bash 4x4 drivers (or any car driver) or impose taxes then I have serious doubts as to the authenticity. Especially since the figures are not conclusive and open to doubt and error,

[youngmafbog]

Having said that I am all for moving away from fossil fuel, but i think it should be done because of the health and Global Political risks.

Be good to put the Arabs back in their tents and cut off Putin in his prime too.

[jim360]

"...if proved beyond doubt I will believe it."

Whose doubt? It seems to me that on topics like this one some people keep moving the "beyond doubt" bar ever further away each time the old one gets passed. A long time ago, however, it was beyond reasonable doubt that there was a clear man-made signal on top of the natural background effects that drive climate change. The only debate now is what the future holds. And that will never be answered until we get there.

[Svejk]

The BBC famously announced 'the science is settled' to justify never allowing a contrary view on MMCC. This after a meeting of 28 experts who didn't have a science degree between them.
I would have thought, jim, that you would be very annoyed at all these English/Art graduates muscling in on your territory.

[youngmafbog]

Well for me - my doubt.

As for bars being broken, this is usually done by a manipulation of figures and as we know there are lies, damn lies and statistics.

And for the record the average household in England now pays £765 a year in environmental taxes alone, netting the Treasury £44.6 Bn,

So please dont tell me there are not vested interests in 'proving' your beloved theory.

[ToraToraTora]

according to trigger on OFAH, it's all to do with Al Pacino.

[jim360]

It's not "my" theory, and it's certainly not "beloved". I would have thought it obvious that the narrative of humans making an appreciable difference to the way the planet works is a sensible one. At the level of comparative minutiae, what the difference may turn out to be and how we should deal with it, I'm not going to deny that vested interests play a part, and most likely this is damaging the science and the perception of the field. Equally, though, it seems bizarre to pretend that there are no vested interests in trying to ignore, or reject, the theory. Who stands to gain, for example, from countering a message that oil is ruining our planet? Oil companies, presumably. This would hardly be the first time they have tried to hide the danger their products cause -- the scandal that was leaded petrol, which took years to ban despite its demonstrable health risks, evidence for which was brushed aside because of vested interests.

Vested interests, and prejudices, and bias, play a role in both sides of the debate. But the overall thesis that we are damaging our own future is by now undeniable. Independent of the exact consequences, which will forever be debated, and changed, and readapted, and even fiddled once or twice, it remains true that we must change our habits when it comes to the environment.