# Attenborough - we've past the point of no return on trying to avoid climate change



## Amity Island (Feb 27, 2021)

He said that countries will only be able to manage the problem rather than avoid it.

"There is no going back - no matter what we do now, it's too late to avoid climate change and the poorest, the most vulnerable, those with the least security, are now certain to suffer."









						Attenborough's stark warning on climate change: 'It's already too late'
					

The veteran broadcaster tells the UN Security Council the climate crisis is the "biggest threat to security" humans have faced.




					news.sky.com


----------



## Inka (Feb 27, 2021)

Benny G said:


> Not to worry, nature always finds a way



You don’t worry about climate change?


----------



## Drummer (Feb 28, 2021)

The world will be just fine - but the people - that's going to be a problem. 
When the ice melts the permafrost with slide or erode into the sea - sea levels will rise, methane will be released. Burping cattle will fade into insignificance.
A lot of people have ideas about reclaiming land and water which could work - when things get so bad that those with power start to pay attention, it might be possible to use natural heat sources to run things such as greenhouses where the warm humid air is cooled and the water condensed out using wind power, so we get food and water and then either feed the plant residues to microbes or larger animals to make more food, or ferment it to make fuel - but chemical pollutants will have to be kept out of the system, or they will just accumulate until levels become toxic. 
There is more than enough land to grow crops for far more than the projected population - it is just that it is in private hands. Food production was greatly increased by the 'Dig for Victory' campaign and educational programs about growing and cooking economically. There are far more ways of growing and preserving food these days.


----------



## Inka (Feb 28, 2021)

Benny G said:


> No, the world is between 2 peaks of an ice age; who can stop the sun from doing its thing?
> I don't worry about things that I can't change.



So you don’t believe the scientists? Isn’t it more _us_ ‘doing our thing’ that’s caused the problem rather than the sun?

We _can_ change the way we live on this planet though.


----------



## Amity Island (Feb 28, 2021)

We do seem to have tackled things in an odd way. It's always a way that suits the rich and the money makers. Take for example the phrase "sustainable development". Those two words sound convincing to some big developer, planning authority, govenment or the man on the street buying a new property, but those two words are at complete odds with each other, completely contradictory. 

How can we have "sustainable" "development"? We are already _*over*_ developed. Any more development makes the situation worse. Thus how can more devlopement be sustainable?

What could be sustainable is a "sustainable" "retreat". Stop taking more land, stop building and start using existing buildings more, retreat into smaller areas.


----------



## Amity Island (Feb 28, 2021)

Inka said:


> Isn’t it more _us_ ‘doing our thing’ that’s caused the problem rather than the sun?


Inka, now there's a question!

The question about man made vs sun cycles has been at the crux of debate for decades.

To me, thinking rationally and freely,  it does seem a perfectly reasonable assumption to make, that given the sun is our planets source of heat, then any change in temperature could be attributable to the suns short and long term cycles.

On the other side of the debate is that human bourne CO2 only accounts for a very, very, very small amount of the atmpsophere and, of all the greenhouse gases, water vapour accounts for 95% of it.

C02 accounts for less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Nitrogen 78%. Oxygen 28%. etc

Of that 0.04% 97% of that is made by nature and just 3% (of that 0.04%) is made by human activity.

3% of 0.04% = 0.0012%

0.0012% is a negligible amount of anything.

How much of a difference would a change in our behaviour make to 0.0012%?

And if it's not our 0.0012% affecting the climate, then why try making huge, drastic changes to business, trade, energy sources. It would be like locking down all year for a virus, it wouldn't put a stop to it.


----------



## everydayupsanddowns (Feb 28, 2021)

I remember hearing about the inevitability of a next ice age when studying at school... Of course the timescale was rather geological in nature, and I think the climate crisis has a rather more immediate and pressing timetable.

Heartbreaking that the peoples and communities that have caused the least of the changes to the climate, and who are worst placed to deal with the consequences, will be bearing the brunt of the climate chaos that now seems unavoidable


----------



## Inka (Feb 28, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Inka, now there's a question!
> 
> The question about man made vs sun cycles has been at the crux of debate for decades.
> 
> ...



@Amity Island It was the sharp spike shown in the graph here that shocked me:

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

While the Earth does go through cycles, the contribution of Humankind is irrefutable. It’s that that’s concerning me (our contribution). 

“_This ancient, or paleoclimate, evidence reveals that current warming is occurring roughly ten times faster than the average rate of ice-age-recovery warming. Carbon dioxide from human activity is increasing more than 250 times faster than it did from natural sources after the last Ice Age.”_


----------



## Inka (Feb 28, 2021)

Benny G said:


> It's 25 years since I studied 'sustainable development' for my dissertation at university; the science hasn't changed.



But we now have more information about our contribution to global warming.


----------



## Inka (Feb 28, 2021)

Benny G said:


> And yet the science hasn't changed.



The science says we’re contributing global warming to the detriment of our planet. Yes, that hasn’t changed. We just know more details.


----------



## Amity Island (Feb 28, 2021)

Inka said:


> @Amity Island It was the sharp spike shown in the graph here that shocked me:
> 
> https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
> 
> ...


Hi Inka,

Like you say, there's definitely something happening. I couldn't begin to explain it all, it's just too complicated. It just seems mad that if all this data is accurate, that we've done almost nothing about it. Perhaps it's human nature to wait until crisis point to do anything. As Attenborough said, that turning points gone now, which to me means all global warming campaigns are in vain. We need to get on with it now and deal with the changes. So no more of this "we need to prevent global warmning" any more.

It will be interesting to see how we tackle these changes from now on.


----------



## Inka (Feb 28, 2021)

Some people don’t understand or care @Amity Island Some people are selfish and only care about instant gratification.

No - the campaigns aren’t in vain! Yes, there’s a time lag in that f we took action today we wouldn’t see all the results for years *but* if we do nothing, then the results will be even worse in years to come. Anything we can do to limit the warming is important.


----------



## nonethewiser (Feb 28, 2021)

All have duty of care to do our best for future generations, no matter how big or small.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Feb 28, 2021)

Benny G said:


> Luckily the natural world always finds a balance.


But unfortunately there's no guarantee that a new equilibrium will be a good place for us.


----------



## Amity Island (Feb 28, 2021)

Inka said:


> Some people don’t understand or care @Amity Island Some people are selfish and only care about instant gratification.
> 
> No - the campaigns aren’t in vain! Yes, there’s a time lag in that f we took action today we wouldn’t see all the results for years *but* if we do nothing, then the results will be even worse in years to come. Anything we can do to limit the warming is important.


Hi Inka,

I know, there are very few selfless people about. It's like, it's easy to be generous when you have plenty, but how many people give when they've got almost nowt. Even charities are now great money making machines, with nobody finding a cure to anything. Almost everyone lives for the moment, not thinking about anyone else or anything else. Attenborough seems to be saying that we're now passed this point where we can do anything to change it. I think it will end with mass migration across continents.

Everything seems to be coming to ahead recently, brexit, covid, climate change, governments failing, leaders misleading, institutions failing. There's certainly interesting times ahead for all of us.


----------



## Ditto (Feb 28, 2021)

We've been here long enough, hopefully the Earth will sort itself out when we've gone. It's not going to be very nice but it's our own fault. We should have been living as Red Indians then we'd have been okay. Not being racist, I  just don't know the proper name for Red Indians! Not native Americans that's for sure.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 1, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Inka, now there's a question!
> 
> The question about man made vs sun cycles has been at the crux of debate for decades.
> 
> ...


That is the of argument of climate change deniers. Confusing Statistics. I can’t really be bothered with ridiculing your percentages, any fool could do that.

 Firstly, the amount of water vapour in the air is neither here nor there. It has been unchanged for millennia. It is not a greenhouse gas. (The amount of water on on the planet is unchanged from millions of years ago.) if we didn’t have water vapour in the atmosphere it would never rain, and mankind would never have evolved. Indeed, life would never have emerged from the sea. Sharks, as apex predators, would rule the world. 

Secondly, though CO2 is a small a percentage of the atmosphere, it has increased steadily, and lately at a faster rate as result of mankind pumping out CO2 from burning fossil fuels, the explosion in car driving, and all manner of industrial activity such as the manufacture of concrete. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It doesn’t matter how small a portion of the atmosphere it is, it is supposed to be small and not increasing. The cycles of the sun have never affected the CO2 in history. The forests and sea have always maintained a balance. Now countries are destroying forests, particularly  in the Amazon region. In the sea, corals and shellfish are dying because the seas are becoming more acid as a result of excess CO2, so they cannot make shells. Again, that hasn’t happened in history. The white cliffs of Dover are made from the shells of prehistoric sea creatures.

Sun cycles (which run 11 yearly approximately) have had no previous lasting effect on climate change or global warming. We would have noticed. The current rise in temperature has been happening  steadily for more than three or four complete sun cycles, so blaming it on the sun is ludicrous.

So play with your use of percentages if you want to, but you can’t deny that mankind is buggering up the world. We aren’t, as St David Attenborough states, beyond the tipping point, but it won’t be long - certainly in our children’s lifetimes - that the Atlantic circulation will turn off, because of all the ice melting in the Antarctic which is proceeding apace. That’s the Gulf Stream, which keeps our weather temperate. We would have a Nordic climate - long snowy winters and warm summers. And no fish that you would recognise.

We will all be dead before all that happens, but our children won’t thank us.


----------



## Drummer (Mar 1, 2021)

I'd have to argue about the water vapour in the air - warmer water means that the air above it is warmed, and that moves water into the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere it can cause changes in the climate in some areas, as it can move into regions which were dry - forming new lakes, or it can depart on the wind and no rain fall in the area and so whole seas dry up.
The permafrost is melting now - that is why there are interesting preserved animals turning  up, mammoths and woolly rhinos - that ground has been so deeply frozen for so long and now it is melting and washing away. There is a bridge in - I think it is Greenland, built on the permafrost - they are expecting it to fall down and cut the island in two, one part no longer accessible by road.
Things will get interesting, that's a certainty.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 1, 2021)

Yes, for sure more water vapour rises from warmed seas, but that’s a consequence, not a cause of a warmer atmosphere. And permafrost melting releases tons of methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

If all that permafrost melts, we’ll all be up the creek, never mind traffic problems in Greenland.

I do agree strongly that it will be interesting. Though that’s easy for us oldies to say


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 1, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> That is the of argument of climate change deniers. Confusing Statistics. I can’t really be bothered with ridiculing your percentages, any fool could do that.
> 
> Firstly, the amount of water vapour in the air is neither here nor there. It has been unchanged for millennia. It is not a greenhouse gas. (The amount of water on on the planet is unchanged from millions of years ago.) if we didn’t have water vapour in the atmosphere it would never rain, and mankind would never have evolved. Indeed, life would never have emerged from the sea. Sharks, as apex predators, would rule the world.
> 
> ...


Mikey B,

I've not got a view on this. All I know is something is changing, that is certain.

Regarding the percentages, I believe these are accurate? I'm not saying either way what the causes are, just showing the proportions of gases in the atmosphere. If you have different figures please share, i'm not against correcting them if they a long way out.

Water vapour *is* a greenhouse gas and it's the most important one. (see link)

Sun cycles also change across millenia as well as 11 yearly. These long cycles range over 9,300 years, which i'd assume is a lot longer than you or I are able to witness.










						It's Water Vapor, Not the CO2 - American Chemical Society
					

American Chemical Society: Chemistry for Life.




					www.acs.org


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 1, 2021)

I wouldn’t disagree with most of that article, but increased water vapour in the air, as I said above, is a consequence of global warming. It can’t be anything else. They say as much in the article, but it doesn’t refute the cause of increased CO2 as a cause of that warming - in fact it doesn’t even discuss it. Bit strange title, in that respect.

The consensus of the vast majority of climate scientists in the world have concluded  that increasing CO2 is the core cause of global warming. You will always get dissenting voices, mainly from America - at least, Trump’s America. He described global warming as a hoax, and too many Americans take his word as gospel. Biden will attempt to put that right.

I should add, that I haven’t seen any reports of the sun getting warmer. Or should I say, more hot. It is getting more luminous at a rate of 6% over a billion years, but that is not exactly a current problem.


----------



## Drummer (Mar 1, 2021)

The water vapour in the air is classed as a greenhouse gas, as it acts as an insulator, so the alterations become more intense all the time and the changes in climate become more erratic as weather and current systems long established are pushed off balance. 
The permafrost is now melting - it is not a case of when it starts, but when it might stop. There is the possibility that it might not stop and that it might vanish completely.


----------



## Inka (Mar 2, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Mikey B,
> 
> I've not got a view on this. All I know is something is changing, that is certain.
> 
> ...



The remark/reply at the top of that article show disagreement between two hypothetical people. The title of the article echoes one of those people. The article then goes on to explain the correct answer:

“_However, water vapor does *not* control the Earth’s temperature, but is instead controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water. This is why clouds form as warm air containing water vapor rises and cools at higher altitudes where the water condenses to the tiny droplets that make up clouds.

The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, *mainly carbon dioxide*, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3. Since the middle of the 20th century, small amounts of man-made gases, mostly chlorine- and fluorine-containing solvents and refrigerants, have been added to the mix. Because these gases are not condensable at atmospheric temperatures and pressures, the atmosphere can pack in much more of these gases . Thus, CO2 (as well as CH4, N2O, and O3) has been building up in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution when we began burning large amounts of fossil fuel”_

The gas percentages are irrelevant. Just because a gas is only a small percentage doesn’t mean it’s not important. CO2 is the main driver of global warming. Water vapour responds to that warming and then contributes, but it is CO2 that’s the issue.


----------



## Docb (Mar 2, 2021)

Let us not forget that both the earth's atmosphere and human reactions to it are complicated and chaotic systems and ascribing wholesale effects to single variables is fraught with difficulty.  Both the amateurs and a lot of the professionals tend to forget this.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 2, 2021)

Docb said:


> Let us not forget that both the earth's atmosphere and human reactions to it are complicated and chaotic systems and ascribing wholesale effects to single variables is fraught with difficulty.  Both the amateurs and a lot of the professionals tend to forget this.


Doc B,

That's very interesting what you said. So...I looked at other possible reasons for global warming and found this. Article from 2013. This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming.

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere," Professor Lu said. "My calculations of CFC greenhouse effect show that there was global warming by about 0.6 °C from 1950 to 2002, but the earth has actually cooled since 2002. The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

It then goes on to say this: (cosmic rays are the cause)

"It was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer was depleted by the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere," he said. "But in contrast, CRE theory says cosmic rays – energy particles originating in space – play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone."









						Global warming caused by chlorofluorocarbons, not carbon dioxide, new study says
					

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are to blame for global warming since the 1970s and not carbon dioxide, according to new research from the University of Waterloo published in the International Journal of Modern Physics B this week.




					phys.org


----------



## TinaD (Mar 2, 2021)

There is little point in waiting for governments (or the rich) to do anythng useful but we can all ( us ordinary bods) do something to help ameliorate the changes our grandchildren may face. Some of us can change our diet, others contribute to restoring rain forests, we can drive electric or use our bikes, cut down waste, water usage, stop flying and insulate our homes etc. OK - it will be like filling a bath with a teaspoon but if enough of us do it it will make some difference. Me? I am planting trees - so far only 150 but more whenever the pennies allow - and growing as much of my own food as I can.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 2, 2021)

TinaD said:


> There is little point in waiting for governments (or the rich) to do anythng useful but we can all ( us ordinary bods) do something to help ameliorate the changes our grandchildren may face. Some of us can change our diet, others contribute to restoring rain forests, we can drive electric or use our bikes, cut down waste, water usage, stop flying and insulate our homes etc. OK - it will be like filling a bath with a teaspoon but if enough of us do it it will make some difference. Me? I am planting trees - so far only 150 but more whenever the pennies allow - and growing as much of my own food as I can.


Hi TinaD,

All sounds very sensible stuff.

Where are you planting trees? Are there charities or organisations that one can donate to help them plant more trees?

I did hear a plan a few years ago about the planting a wall of trees along the full length of the M62 motorway.









						Leeds to benefit from creation of new M62 '˜forest' along motorway corridor
					

Plans to plant 50 million trees to create a 'Northern Forest' will include new woodland in and around Leeds and other major urban centres, it has been revealed.




					www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Mar 2, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming and the subsequent cooling since 2002 after CFC's were banned.


And yet climate scientists in general don't buy it. I'm no expert but I think I can spot an upwards trend in this graph, though you could certainly choose small periods over which temperature is falling. (Scroll down to "Why do greenhouse gas emissions matter?".)









						CO₂ and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
					

Who is emitting greenhouse gases? Which countries and which sectors? And what needs to happen to reduce emissions?




					ourworldindata.org


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 2, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> And yet climate scientists in general don't buy it. I'm no expert but I think I can spot an upwards trend in this graph, though you could certainly choose small periods over which temperature is falling. (Scroll down to "Why do greenhouse gas emissions matter?".)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, that certainly corroborates the upturn since 1980's when CFC's became popular.


----------



## TinaD (Mar 2, 2021)

I am planting trees on my own land as I am lucky enough to have a smallholding. There are charities which will plant trees - my daughter and son-in-law ask for trees as a Christmas present and are "planting a grove" with these people - https://treesforlife.org.uk They seem quite reputable, not over expensive and let you (or your friends and relatives)add to your "grove" as and when healthy finances/birthdays/christmases come round. There are also many other schemes including some trying to remedy the damage done by mining and palm oil/cattle clearance of forest land - just give it a quick google..


----------



## Inka (Mar 2, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Doc B,
> 
> That's very interesting what you said. So...I looked at other possible reasons for global warming and found this. Article from 2013. This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming.
> 
> ...



Yet other graphs show that global temperatures have increased. What exactly is he saying has decreased?


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Mar 2, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Yes, that certainly corroborates the upturn since 1980's when CFC's became popular.


It doesn't really show a decline after they were phased out.

And the 1980's don't look particularly special on the graph.

Regardless, it still seems that the overwhelming majority of the people who actually study climate seem to think it's mostly the CO2. I don't see a reason to doubt them.


----------



## Inka (Mar 2, 2021)

Ah, I thought the ‘cosmic ray’ bit rang a bell. His theory seems to have been disproved shortly afterwards:

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0217979214820037


----------



## Drummer (Mar 2, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Hi TinaD,
> 
> All sounds very sensible stuff.
> 
> ...


I hope they take the stroboscope or 'flicker effect' into account - a road where there were accidents for no apparent reason was found to have poplar trees planted alongside it at just the right frequency to cast shadows and cause fits in the susceptible.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 2, 2021)

Drummer said:


> I hope they take the stroboscope or 'flicker effect' into account - a road where there were accidents for no apparent reason was found to have poplar trees planted alongside it at just the right frequency to cast shadows and cause fits in the susceptible.


That is so true!

Many a time i've been driving and there has been a open fence or trees near the road and I thought what is that flashing in my eyes. 

Now I know!


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 2, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Doc B,
> 
> That's very interesting what you said. So...I looked at other possible reasons for global warming and found this. Article from 2013. This to me looks like a far more likely candidate for global warming.
> 
> ...


I remember that from back in the day. It was quickly debunked by multiple climate experts; eg https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=2057


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 2, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> I remember that from back in the day. It was quickly debunked by multiple climate experts; eg https://skepticalscience.com/news.php?p=2&t=76&&n=2057


Eddy,

Truth is not decided by consensus, particulalry when these "scientists" are not independant but rely on funding for their work.

The graph that @Bruce Stephens found does match the rise in global temp around same time CFC's became popular in the 1980's and CFC's are known to cause global warming.

It does seem a reasonable observation.


----------



## Inka (Mar 2, 2021)

“_Lu (2013) (L13) argued that solar effects and anthropogenic halogenated gases can explain most of the observed warming of global mean surface air temperatures since 1850, with virtually no contribution from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. *Here we show that this conclusion is based on assumptions about the saturation of the CO2-induced greenhouse effect that have been experimentally falsified. L13 also confuses equilibrium and transient response, and relies on data sources that have been superseeded due to known inaccuracies.* Furthermore, the statistical approach of sequential linear regression artificially shifts variance onto the first predictor*. L13's artificial choice of regression order and neglect of other relevant data is the fundamental cause of the incorrect main conclusion*. Consideration of more modern data and a more parsimonious multiple regression model leads to contradiction with L13's statistical results. Finally, the correlation arguments in L13 are falsified by considering either the more appropriate metric of global heat accumulation, or data on longer timescales.”_

His hypothesis was shown to be incorrect. What do you mean about funding?


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 2, 2021)

Inka said:


> “_Lu (2013) (L13) argued that solar effects and anthropogenic halogenated gases can explain most of the observed warming of global mean surface air temperatures since 1850, with virtually no contribution from atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. *Here we show that this conclusion is based on assumptions about the saturation of the CO2-induced greenhouse effect that have been experimentally falsified. L13 also confuses equilibrium and transient response, and relies on data sources that have been superseeded due to known inaccuracies.* Furthermore, the statistical approach of sequential linear regression artificially shifts variance onto the first predictor*. L13's artificial choice of regression order and neglect of other relevant data is the fundamental cause of the incorrect main conclusion*. Consideration of more modern data and a more parsimonious multiple regression model leads to contradiction with L13's statistical results. Finally, the correlation arguments in L13 are falsified by considering either the more appropriate metric of global heat accumulation, or data on longer timescales.”_
> 
> His hypothesis was shown to be incorrect. What do you mean about funding?


Inka,

Would you be able to translate that into something easy to understand?

Regarding funding, I mean a lot of scientists rely on financial contributions from certain institutions and businesses who have a particular view on things. Meaning, scientists tend to find the results they need to secure financial support and Eddy was saying that because many scientsts agree on something, that must make it true.


----------



## Inka (Mar 2, 2021)

Probably not very well @Amity Island but it’s saying basically that he took/used the data that supported his hypothesis. It’s called curve-fitting, I think.

Hopefully this article will explain a lot better than me and in more detail:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...nt/2014/apr/18/global-warming-carbon-not-cfcs


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 3, 2021)

Benny G said:


> But noone has mentioned the elephant in the room:
> 
> Bums on seats
> 
> ...


I guess the rate of increase is slowing, FWIW.


----------



## Eddy Edson (Mar 3, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Eddy,
> 
> Truth is not decided by consensus, particulalry when these "scientists" are not independant but rely on funding for their work.
> 
> ...


Really, the arrogance is both breathtaking and hilarious. You evidently have no scientific qualifications or desire to put any work into understanding the arguments, yet you dismiss the whole body of climate scentists and accuse them of corruption, because you've found an old debunked piece of speculation from a non-climate expert which you think looks nifty.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 3, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> Really, the arrogance is both breathtaking and hilarious. You evidently have no scientific qualifications or desire to put any work into understanding the arguments, yet you dismiss the whole body of climate scentists and accuse them of corruption, because you've found an old debunked piece of speculation from a non-climate expert which you think looks nifty.


Eddy,

Arrogance/Hilarious? You have evidently misread what I have said. Please _read_ what I've said, rather than what you think I've said.

I've not said the Co2 scientists are wrong. Have I? Have I?

For your benefit, all I said was this.

Consensus does not = truth. THAT IS A FACT. 9 out of 10 people can agree and be wrong and the remaining 1 person can be right. Ask anyone convicted of a crime they were innocent of. If many people agreeing makes it true, then where would that place conspiracy theories?

I've not said Co2 isn't the cause of global warming, have I? have I?

I'm only suggesting there may be other reasons, as any good scientist would also appreciate. Look at all the evidence rather than forming one conclusion and sticking to it, no matter what.

Again, I am not saying that Co2 is not the cause. I am not saying Co2 is not the cause. I'm just trying to keep all possibilites open for discussion. 

Keeping an open mind is not arrogance nor is it hilarious.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 3, 2021)

Eddy Edson said:


> You evidently have no scientific qualifications.


Eddy,

Same for this belief about having no scientific qualifications.

Since when do you need to be a doctor to know someone is ill?

Just because someone doesn't have any training or qualifications in a particular field _doesn't_ mean they can't form a valid opinion. I'm sure some of the greatest discoveries and inventions ever made were by those _without_ any training or qualifications or "scientific qualifications". I'd go as far as saying having "training" or "qualifications" can actually lower the chances of finding something out. If you are "trained" then you are fixed to the beliefs that they instill. It's often the untrained eye that spots the obvious or unknown. 

We are all allowed to think.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 3, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Eddy,
> 
> Same for this belief about having no scientific qualifications.
> 
> ...


I became a doctor not because I wanted to say people were ill, which as you intimate, any fool can do that. I became a doctor to stop folk being ill, which does need rather a lot of education and knowledge.

And yes, we are all allowed to think. But in any discussion where there are differing views, you don’t just have to think, you have to look at all the evidence, judge the weight of that evidence, and form an opinion on the value of that evidence. You do need an education to be able to do that, in this case a scientific education. And the climate scientists are largely as one in considering that rising CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.

Also, it perfectly reasonable to say that you haven’t said that CO 2 isn’t the cause of global warming, and that you are merely presenting alternate opinions. However, you don’t pass any opinion on those alternate opinions, because you can’t outthink climate scientists. Nor can I, of course. I concede their expertise.

On the subject of the source of that CO2, the graph of the increase follows almost exactly the popularity of carbonated drinks, Coke, Pepsi, 7–Up and so forth. Open a can and hear that hiss of carbon dioxide escaping, and in the burps after drinking it. The evidence is  irrefutable.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 3, 2021)

mikeyB said:


> I became a doctor not because I wanted to say people were ill, which as you intimate, any fool can do that. I became a doctor to stop folk being ill, which does need rather a lot of education and knowledge.
> 
> And yes, we are all allowed to think. But in any discussion where there are differing views, you don’t just have to think, you have to look at all the evidence, judge the weight of that evidence, and form an opinion on the value of that evidence. You do need an education to be able to do that, in this case a scientific education. And the climate scientists are largely as one in considering that rising CO2 is the prime cause of global warming.
> 
> ...


Mikey B,

Yet you say Attenborough is wrong on saying "we've passed the tipping point" on climate change, but you say you concede to "their" expertise.

On the evidence, how long were we told fat was bad for us? Then 20 years later, it's just animal fats that are bad for us. I still remeber it, in the 80's it was all "low fat" foods in the supermarkets, then the scientific consensus changed not long ago saying dairy fats are good for you. Dietry fat is essential to live. 

Scientific opinions can blow with the wind, depending on what evidence they have at hand.

I was replying to @Eddy Edson reply to me about my arrogance and hilarious response. I am not arrogant and having an opinion is not hilarious. I've got no opinion on the matter of global warming (as I keep saying), because I just don't have sufficient time, evidence or experience to form a reliable opinion. The only opinion i have is what @Docb said was saying, there is always more to something, there are unknowns, there is more evidence out there if you look for it, keep an open mind as things are rarely straight forward cut and dry.


----------



## Bruce Stephens (Mar 3, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I'd go as far as saying having "training" or "qualifications" can actually lower the chances of finding something out.


I'd bet the opposite in general. Sure, sometimes experts are wrong and the outside non-expert sees something they're missing. But most often that's not the case.


----------



## Amity Island (Mar 3, 2021)

Bruce Stephens said:


> I'd bet the opposite in general. Sure, sometimes experts are wrong and the outside non-expert sees something they're missing. But most often that's not the case.


I'd certainly hope so. But I stand by my point how experts can, even with consensus be wrong.


----------



## mikeyB (Mar 3, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> Inka,
> 
> Would you be able to translate that into something easy to understand?
> 
> Regarding funding, I mean a lot of scientists rely on financial contributions from certain institutions and businesses who have a particular view on things. Meaning, scientists tend to find the results they need to secure financial support and Eddy was saying that because many scientsts agree on something, that must make it true.


So do the views of the contrary opinion on climate change. Follow the money, it's fascinating.

By the way, David Attenborough isn't a climate scientist. He has a degree in Natural Sciences, specialising in Geology and Zoology. Dare I say the majority of climate scientists do not agree with him - yet?


----------



## Inka (Mar 3, 2021)

Amity Island said:


> I'd certainly hope so. But I stand by my point how experts can, even with consensus be wrong.



Yes, sometimes, but I don’t think there have been any other theories about climate change that have held up to scrutiny. Did you read the Guardian article I linked to? I think it was a good examination of why the cosmic rays hypothesis was wrong.

I don’t see any contradiction in what Attenborough said. He’s basically saying we can’t stop climate change happening now because it’s already been set in motion, but we can limit the amount and try to keep warming to as low a figure as we can.

The trouble is that because these changes happen over a period of time, some people find it hard to conceive there’s a problem. The future could be catastrophic - yet you see people on Twitter burbling away about not giving up their car/meat/flights as though the consequences of global warming are trivial. One question I saw specifically asked if people would not eat meat if that was what was necessary to stop this, and so many of the replies were utterly facile. Until people ‘get it’, we have little hope.


----------



## Docb (Mar 3, 2021)

I will repeat my comment from above....

*Let us not forget that both the earth's atmosphere and human reactions to it are complicated and chaotic systems and ascribing wholesale effects to single variables is fraught with difficulty.  Both the amateurs and a lot of the professionals tend to forget this.*

Note, I did not say all the professionals but I did imply all the amateurs.  As far as I know there are no professional climate scientists contributing to this discussion. 

Amateurs getting to the bottom of things just does not happen in real life and it certainly will not happen with climate science where the bottom is a very long way down and very, very murky.  I am reminded of the quote attributed to Issac Newton (he really was a scientist):-

"If I can see further, it is because I am standing on the shoulders of giants"

He did not rely on the Twitterati for inspiration.


----------



## Docb (Mar 4, 2021)

And I would add, as the drop you know gets bigger, the ocean gets deeper.

Spent most of my life in the Nuclear Industry and so got used to everybody and their father shouting their opinions about the industry that I knew very well.  Fundamentally, most of them had something useful to say but it always came from a narrow view point. Picking off arguments to support whatever narrow view they had.  What characterised the vast majority was that they had never been into a nuclear plant, had no real idea of how they worked and knew little about the energy industry.  

I see the same in most of the climate change experts, including to some extent I am afraid, national treasure, Sir David Attenborough.  Only too happy to climb on an aeroplane to go somewhere nice to complain about people getting on aeroplanes to go somewhere nice.


----------



## Inka (Mar 4, 2021)

@Benny G The rate of population growth is declining though. What you’ve linked to there (the response to Attenborough) is part of the general problem. Changing the way we live is something that many find hard to do because of social and/or cultural issues. Sorting out the vast problem of the use of Earth to make life less damaging to the planet and more equitable for everyone is a bigger problem than just climate change.

World hunger. the missing millions of women, unfair distribution of wealth and resources - all human issues that we’re nowhere near sorting. So the idea that people might go without things for the sake of the planet is hard to envisage on any large scale, and that’s what’s depressing about it. It wouldn’t matter if we knew everything, made a great plan, saw a better future, if few people went along with it.


----------

