The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > An Act of Negligence > Comments

An Act of Negligence : Comments

By Sophie Trevitt, published 24/1/2011

How many more have to suffer before we decide to do something about limiting CO2 emissions?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
[Deleted for abuse.]
Posted by KenH, Monday, 24 January 2011 2:18:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The only thing these comments seem to do is illustrate the psychology around the issue.

The argument in favour of climate change boils down to a couple of things - the view of the majority of the worlds scientists and, for some people, what they observe in terms of carbon emissions and changes in climate that are consistent with scientific predictions.

Arguments against seem to be some combination of:
1. The scientists are wrong - they have misinterpreted the data or are looking at the wrong things - check out my critique of the science (PS: I am not a scientist) or check out my favourite scientist who says .....blah blah blah.
2. The scientists are part of a big conspiracy - they are knowingly promoting climate change because they need research grants. They are being aided and abetted by all those greens who need climate change as an excuse to dismantle industrialised society.
3. The scientists are wrong because dealing with climate change implies going green, putting a tax on carbon emissions and that offends my core values and beliefs.

1 and 2 seem possible but extremely unlikely. 3 is not really an argument is it - it doesn't even get better if you abuse the climate change proponents or talk more LOUDLY.

Interesting ..... but disappointing ......
Posted by Rich2, Monday, 24 January 2011 3:36:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've deleted a number of posts above. It is not valid to criticise this, or any other author, because of their age, gender, who they work for, or what they believe unless you are dealing with the arguments they put up.

I haven't suspended anyone yet, but if this continues the time when I do is not far away.
Posted by GrahamY, Monday, 24 January 2011 3:40:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My favourite table
Natural and Anthropogenic (man-made) Contributions to the "Greenhouse
Effect," expressed as % of Total
Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics
% of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC's, etc.) 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72 0.28%

in toher words water vapour is responsible for 95% of Greenhouse Gases CO2 less than 4%. For CO2 0.1% is caused by man and the rest naturally. So don't sweat.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
Posted by EQ, Monday, 24 January 2011 3:55:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rich2 - your reasoning in favour of climate change (I take it you mean Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change - CAGW) is flawed.

'the view of the majority of the worlds scientists'

This is nowhere even close to being established. The catastrophist claims of the IPCC are in fact the opinions of a handful of lead authors, all of whom pretty much owe their entire careers to the IPCC. Many scientists dispute such claims, some publicly, many not.

'carbon emissions and changes in climate that are consistent with scientific predictions'

Again, not established. There is a prima facie correllation, but nothing *like* a well established causal relationship.

For a quite neutral, yet still devastating (to quote James Lovelock) perspective on both these claims, I'd refer you to Prof. Garth W. Paltridge's excellent 'The climate caper: facts and fallacies of global warming'.

'The science of global warming is far less settled than climate activists would have us believe. The high probability attached by the IPCC to its thesis of climatic disaster ... [basically] derives from a set of people sitting around a table making personal guesses about the quality of the models.'
Posted by Clownfish, Monday, 24 January 2011 4:51:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think Sophie needs to back up her assertions with some science and rational thinking.For a start in statistics you knock out the lowest and highest scores to eliminate distortions.All we hear from the AGW groups is examples of extreme weather patterns.

So please no more alarmist claims.The science in this complex area is never settled.Al Gore has no credibility.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 24 January 2011 8:02:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy