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 > A Stern review > Comments

A Stern review : Comments

By Andrew Hewett, published 6/11/2006

The debate about whether climate change is occurring is over. The question now is how do we respond?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
John Howard held out as long as he could. So did Ian Macfarlane. Even they can no longer ignore the mounting evidence, much as they would like it to go away.

Forget the few remaining climate sceptics. Like a residual bacterial culture, they reside in tiny numbers only within the confines of a safe medium, such as Internet forums.

Going out into the street, it is hard to find a climate sceptic anywhere. Sorry guys and gals, if you try to defy unanimous scientific consensus with your semantic quasi science you are going to end up pretty bitter and twisted.

I was a climate sceptic once, and can identify with your fervent wish that it is not all happening. Relax. The game is over.

The climate challenge, as immense as it is, will energise society in many positve ways. Live positively, meet the challenge, help change society so that it can cope, learn about new elegant technologies, lobby for sustainable political solutions, develop a more sustainable lifestyle in your own home.

For those who want to do something about climate change, forget the energy sapping sceptics, there is so much positive stuff to do.
Posted by gecko, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 7:25:40 AM
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
<b>I am rather fond of this from the PDF filehttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/11/05/warm-refs.pdf;jsessionid=V3BRRQCKCNNTRQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0
that expands upon the piece that Owen links too. it sums up the problems with the "consensus" makes the case brigade.</b>

ALL TEN of the propositions listed below must be proven true if the
climate-change “consensus” is to be proven true. The first article considers the first six of the listed propositions and draws the conclusions shown.
The second article will consider the remaining four propositions.
Proposition Conclusion
1. That the debate is over and all credible climate scientists are agreed. False
2. That temperature has risen above millennial variability and is exceptional. Very unlikely
3. That changes in solar irradiance are an insignificant forcing mechanism. False
4. That the last century’s increases in temperature are correctly measured. Unlikely
5.
That greenhouse-gas increase is the main forcing agent of temperature. Not proven
6. That temperature will rise far enough to do more harm than good. Very unlikely
7. That continuing greenhouse-gas emissions will be very harmful to
life. Unlikely
8. That proposed carbon-emission limits would make a definite
difference. Very unlikely
9. That the environmental benefits of remediation will be cost-effective. Very unlikely
10. That taking precautions, just in case, would be the responsible course. False

Remember that the essence of the scientific method is the testing of a hypothesis by experiments that are able to be repeated for verification. That is just not possible with the claims about global warming. Christopher Monckton goes back to first principles and looks at the data that underlies the extravagant claims of AGW and show clearly that the emperor has no clothes at all.
Posted by Iain, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 10:07:32 AM
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
What really pisses me off, is that we're sitting here debating whether or not global warming is caused by emissions.

Look - can we just agree the climate is changing, regardless of whether man created this phenomenon?

Yes? Great.

Setting aside the topic of emissions for the moment, can we focus on actually doing something for the areas which will be worst affected?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 12:14:08 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
But is the climate changing – ie warming?
And what if it is cooling?
It might be warming in some places but the South Pacific appears to be singularly unaffected.
The non urban weather stations in NZ show no warming and indeed temperatures in 2002 were lower than in 1865.
Have a look at the Norfolk Island temps and tell me where the warming is?
Then check out the non-urban stations in Australia. They are all on the Daly page.

And sea levels have not been rising around Australia or anywhere else in the Pacific except as a result of normal plate and volcanic dynamics.
Tuvalu is certainly not sinking and Tuvaluans are not migrating to NZ in spite of Gore's goring of the truth.

So tell me where the temperatures have risen and sea levels have risen at an alarming rate in Australia and New Zealand and maybe we can do something about it.
Posted by Owen, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 12:30:06 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
Thirty years ago we were told to expect an ice age. Now we are told to expect warming.
The Earth's climate is variable. In the Jurassic and Cretaceuous periods the world was a lot warmer and wetter than it is today. There were no ice caps for example. Yet there was an abundance of life.
As the climate changes, mankind will adapt, as he always has. If not he will die.
I see no reason to believe that mankind will not continue to adapt.
Notice that virtually nobody lives in the Sahara.
Man can move around.
In fact our capacity for adaptation has probably increased after the last 150 years,as a result of technology.
So I see no real cause for alarm; certainly no need for "Big Brother" to impose new taxes, regulations etc.
Posted by Froggie, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 12:44:46 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
climate change what a goer.

This hasnt just occured since we have been here, its been happenening for the last 10,000 years and something changed about 8,000 years ago.

Yes i know in the last 200 years co2 has increased but instead of temp going down which should have already happened and say another 7,000 years have a very cold period.

Just because change is happening doesnt mean we have been the whole cause of it.

Maybe we should look up during the day sometimes, there are many variables to a problem.
Posted by tapp, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 12:53:07 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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