FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
John Ashton - Why you should be angry about climate change

John Ashton - Why you should be angry about climate change

(20:51) If you are under 30, you will experience in your lifetime what unmanageable climate change is like. Now an independent commentator and adviser on the politics of climate change, John Ashton served as Special Representative for Climate Change to three successive UK Foreign Secretaries, spanning the current Coalition and the previous Labour Government. TEDtalks 2013.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: KoolerAid (1256 days ago)

What a useless conversation! The Earth has been here for millions of years and it will be here - loong after we have wiped each other out with nukes purchased from our local store! Looking from an aeroplane we cannot even see the cars on the road, and we are told that their farts are going to destroy the planet!


ReplyVote up (205)down (134)
Original comment

What a useless conversation! The Earth has been here for millions of years and it will be here - loong after we have wiped each other out with nukes purchased from our local store! Looking from an aeroplane we cannot even see the cars on the road, and we are told that their farts are going to destroy the planet!


Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1256 days ago)

The planet will be fine. It's a rock. But your grandchildren won't thank you for making it uninhabitable.

ReplyVote up (127)down (125)
Original comment

The planet will be fine. It's a rock. But your grandchildren won't thank you for making it uninhabitable.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

Still teaching kids that the natural changing cycle of the planet is being caused by humans. I am so sick of the "Man made" Bullshit! So are millions of others, including many thousands of scientists. I can't wait for the day when everyone realises that man didn't do anything to change the climate....Oh wait... That will never be acknowledged because... They never announce when they get things wrong... They just quietly switch to the next thing and the sheeple go along with them. They never did retract the statements about "the Ice age" we were headded for a few years back... just stopped saying it ..... People have short memories and too much trust in these "Scientists" especially the IPCC.

ReplyVote up (131)down (145)
Original comment

Still teaching kids that the natural changing cycle of the planet is being caused by humans. I am so sick of the "Man made" Bullshit! So are millions of others, including many thousands of scientists. I can't wait for the day when everyone realises that man didn't do anything to change the climate....Oh wait... That will never be acknowledged because... They never announce when they get things wrong... They just quietly switch to the next thing and the sheeple go along with them. They never did retract the statements about "the Ice age" we were headded for a few years back... just stopped saying it ..... People have short memories and too much trust in these "Scientists" especially the IPCC.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

So do you think that human activity has no effect on the climate, or that human activity is too little to have any significant effect on the climate?

ReplyVote up (219)down (142)
Original comment

So do you think that human activity has no effect on the climate, or that human activity is too little to have any significant effect on the climate?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

I don't believe that human activity can effect the weather. This planet has gone through the same weather changes many many times over it's life span without humans. It is a natural cycle. Why people are insisting that THIS TIME it is because of us... Is absolutely assenine. The temp spiked before the industrial revolution, as it has done before. Many graphs used for "Proof" of "Mad made" climate change are short term and inaccurate. This is not the first time that the government and its scientists have pushed an agenda on the world public and it won't be the last. Margaret Thatcher started it this time with her "Clean nuclear power" agenda. When the coal miners in Britain started striking. She lost control of the public and in trying to regain it started spouting "Dirty heat" and "Clean heat"... From that point on, We started to get programing on BBC (Gov controlled TV)... About people polluting the air etc... It all ballooned from there. All anyone has to do is actually spend time looking at the facts, (NOT IPPC FACTS) Research back through recorded time for themselves .... and they will see that what the IPPC is currently spouting just does not make sense!

ReplyVote up (139)down (211)
Original comment

I don't believe that human activity can effect the weather. This planet has gone through the same weather changes many many times over it's life span without humans. It is a natural cycle. Why people are insisting that THIS TIME it is because of us... Is absolutely assenine. The temp spiked before the industrial revolution, as it has done before. Many graphs used for "Proof" of "Mad made" climate change are short term and inaccurate. This is not the first time that the government and its scientists have pushed an agenda on the world public and it won't be the last. Margaret Thatcher started it this time with her "Clean nuclear power" agenda. When the coal miners in Britain started striking. She lost control of the public and in trying to regain it started spouting "Dirty heat" and "Clean heat"... From that point on, We started to get programing on BBC (Gov controlled TV)... About people polluting the air etc... It all ballooned from there. All anyone has to do is actually spend time looking at the facts, (NOT IPPC FACTS) Research back through recorded time for themselves .... and they will see that what the IPPC is currently spouting just does not make sense!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

We added about 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere last year. This is carbon that would otherwise have remained underground.

Do you think CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere, or that 30 billion tons is not enough to have a significant effect?

ReplyVote up (137)down (126)
Original comment

We added about 30 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere last year. This is carbon that would otherwise have remained underground.

Do you think CO2 has no effect on the atmosphere, or that 30 billion tons is not enough to have a significant effect?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

I don't care how much carbon we emitted. .... We were NOT emitting it before when the climate was doing the same as it is now! The C02 levels in the atmostphere have been higher in the past. What caused it then? Why was it a natural thing then? What caused the last ice age? the last heat age? The polar bears did not become extinct the last time we went through a heat phaze... Scare mongering is what the Gov does best. Try to look beyond human C02 output and instead look at what the planet has been and will be doing forever! You are locked into the fact that we are emitting more C02 than we have before instead of looking at the much bigger picture. We should be spending our time and money cleaning up our water, planting more trees, feeding the hungry etc instead of wasting billions on something that we cannot alter. We are forcing third world countries to continue to suffer by denying them the right to use carbon fules for industrialization. How dare we stop them from making progress the way we did? Making people continue to suffer while we throw money away at wind turbines...Solar panels ... and other so called "Green" projects. Projects that help no one but the buisinesses that make them.

ReplyVote up (140)down (126)
Original comment

I don't care how much carbon we emitted. .... We were NOT emitting it before when the climate was doing the same as it is now! The C02 levels in the atmostphere have been higher in the past. What caused it then? Why was it a natural thing then? What caused the last ice age? the last heat age? The polar bears did not become extinct the last time we went through a heat phaze... Scare mongering is what the Gov does best. Try to look beyond human C02 output and instead look at what the planet has been and will be doing forever! You are locked into the fact that we are emitting more C02 than we have before instead of looking at the much bigger picture. We should be spending our time and money cleaning up our water, planting more trees, feeding the hungry etc instead of wasting billions on something that we cannot alter. We are forcing third world countries to continue to suffer by denying them the right to use carbon fules for industrialization. How dare we stop them from making progress the way we did? Making people continue to suffer while we throw money away at wind turbines...Solar panels ... and other so called "Green" projects. Projects that help no one but the buisinesses that make them.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

We agree the climate has natural cycles driven by a complicated relationship between the sun's energy, the composition of the atmosphere, the oceans, living things, volcanos etc.

So, do you think human activity has no effect on the climate's natural cycle, or that 30 billion tons of CO2 does affect the climate's natural cycle, but it's insignificant?

ReplyVote up (126)down (115)
Original comment

We agree the climate has natural cycles driven by a complicated relationship between the sun's energy, the composition of the atmosphere, the oceans, living things, volcanos etc.

So, do you think human activity has no effect on the climate's natural cycle, or that 30 billion tons of CO2 does affect the climate's natural cycle, but it's insignificant?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

Didn't I just say that?

ReplyVote up (105)down (193)
Original comment

Didn't I just say that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

Say what? I was asking you a question because I'm still not clear on your position.

I think your position is: human activity IS affecting the climate, but it is not significant. Better to spend our money on cleaning water, fighting hunger and planting trees.

Did I get that right?

ReplyVote up (113)down (187)
Original comment

Say what? I was asking you a question because I'm still not clear on your position.

I think your position is: human activity IS affecting the climate, but it is not significant. Better to spend our money on cleaning water, fighting hunger and planting trees.

Did I get that right?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

I believe that humans are NOT affecting the climate! and you know... Those computer generated forcasts are only as accurate as the information fed into them. You know... They closed down many weather input sites in the artic and russia meaning that, When they accumilate the current info... they are minus a number of cold temp inputs (Ones that were used for temp averages in the past) so now, it looks like we are warmer... We actually are not working with the same info!

ReplyVote up (115)down (125)
Original comment

I believe that humans are NOT affecting the climate! and you know... Those computer generated forcasts are only as accurate as the information fed into them. You know... They closed down many weather input sites in the artic and russia meaning that, When they accumilate the current info... they are minus a number of cold temp inputs (Ones that were used for temp averages in the past) so now, it looks like we are warmer... We actually are not working with the same info!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

But what you say makes no sense. Human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% since pre-Industrial Revolution, and CO2 traps heat. So humans must be affecting the climate. The question is, by how much. Surely you agree with that logic?

You just think a 30% increase in CO2 is not enough to make a significant difference. But 30% is a huge increase. If you increased your burger intake by 30%, you'd notice the difference. If your heart started pumping 30% faster, you'd notice the difference. If your legs were 30% longer...

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but it is a significant one. So how can you expect a 30% increase to have no effect?

ReplyVote up (204)down (116)
Original comment

But what you say makes no sense. Human activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% since pre-Industrial Revolution, and CO2 traps heat. So humans must be affecting the climate. The question is, by how much. Surely you agree with that logic?

You just think a 30% increase in CO2 is not enough to make a significant difference. But 30% is a huge increase. If you increased your burger intake by 30%, you'd notice the difference. If your heart started pumping 30% faster, you'd notice the difference. If your legs were 30% longer...

CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas, but it is a significant one. So how can you expect a 30% increase to have no effect?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1258 days ago)

While I'm here, a 30% increase in CO2 means nothing. Talking in terms of percentages is very deceptive. If I told you my company had a profit increase of 30%, do you know how much money that is? People use figures like this to purposely confuse people. It's like those charts showing a huge increase in temperatures but when you look at them, the scale is 1/2 degree for the whole chart which makes it look like a huge increase but in reality is very little especially when you look at historical information beyond the time periods they show.

If I increase my burger intake by 30%, it would make absolutely no difference. I'm gluten-free and a vegetarian. Just saying.

Be more cautious when looking at numbers and charts because some of them are meaningless.

ReplyVote up (111)down (109)
Original comment

While I'm here, a 30% increase in CO2 means nothing. Talking in terms of percentages is very deceptive. If I told you my company had a profit increase of 30%, do you know how much money that is? People use figures like this to purposely confuse people. It's like those charts showing a huge increase in temperatures but when you look at them, the scale is 1/2 degree for the whole chart which makes it look like a huge increase but in reality is very little especially when you look at historical information beyond the time periods they show.

If I increase my burger intake by 30%, it would make absolutely no difference. I'm gluten-free and a vegetarian. Just saying.

Be more cautious when looking at numbers and charts because some of them are meaningless.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1258 days ago)

I'm so glad you've come to rescue. dananddiana couldn't answer that question (how does 30% increase in CO2 not affect the climate?), and has given up. And original123 won't.

You say percentages can be deceptive, and I agree.

The reason why a 30% increase in burgers would not affect you, is because burgers are insignificant in your diet. If burgers were significant in your diet, then your body would notice a 30% increase.

If a 30% increase in CO2 does not result in warming, then CO2 is either not a greenhouse gas, or its heat-trapping role in the atmosphere is insignificant.

Tell me which you think it is, and I'll explain where you're going wrong.

ReplyVote up (108)down (117)
Original comment

I'm so glad you've come to rescue. dananddiana couldn't answer that question (how does 30% increase in CO2 not affect the climate?), and has given up. And original123 won't.

You say percentages can be deceptive, and I agree.

The reason why a 30% increase in burgers would not affect you, is because burgers are insignificant in your diet. If burgers were significant in your diet, then your body would notice a 30% increase.

If a 30% increase in CO2 does not result in warming, then CO2 is either not a greenhouse gas, or its heat-trapping role in the atmosphere is insignificant.

Tell me which you think it is, and I'll explain where you're going wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1258 days ago)

The amount of CO2 is insignificant compared to other green house gases such as water vapor which represents 37,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water. How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? That's measured in ppm and is currently at 401.88 and I'm not sure what the conversion rate is but I would bet it's much lower than water vapor.

Besides, have you considered the benefits of CO2? It is plant food and without it all the plants would die. Stop deforestation and a lot of that CO2 would be absorbed into the plant life.

ReplyVote up (121)down (207)
Original comment

The amount of CO2 is insignificant compared to other green house gases such as water vapor which represents 37,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of water. How much CO2 is in the atmosphere? That's measured in ppm and is currently at 401.88 and I'm not sure what the conversion rate is but I would bet it's much lower than water vapor.

Besides, have you considered the benefits of CO2? It is plant food and without it all the plants would die. Stop deforestation and a lot of that CO2 would be absorbed into the plant life.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1258 days ago)

CO2 is not insigificant compared to other greenhouse gases. 9 - 26% compared to water vapour and clouds 36 - 72%. LINK

Water vapour only remains in the atmosphere for about 9 days, compared to 30 - 95 years for CO2.

CO2 is significant because it is the bit in the atmosphere that we are changing. If we were pumping 35 billion tons of methane into the atmosphere every year, we'd be talking about methane.

Unfortunately, as a species, we are quite particular about the climate we like. We already have a 1 degree rise since pre-Industrial Revolution - and that is already causing havoc and costing an estimated $1.6 trillion a year. Another degree hotter is the best we can hope for if we get our act together now. Another few degrees hotter and we can kiss goodbye to the human species.

Cacti will probably be OK though.

ReplyVote up (118)down (103)
Original comment

CO2 is not insigificant compared to other greenhouse gases. 9 - 26% compared to water vapour and clouds 36 - 72%. LINK

Water vapour only remains in the atmosphere for about 9 days, compared to 30 - 95 years for CO2.

CO2 is significant because it is the bit in the atmosphere that we are changing. If we were pumping 35 billion tons of methane into the atmosphere every year, we'd be talking about methane.

Unfortunately, as a species, we are quite particular about the climate we like. We already have a 1 degree rise since pre-Industrial Revolution - and that is already causing havoc and costing an estimated $1.6 trillion a year. Another degree hotter is the best we can hope for if we get our act together now. Another few degrees hotter and we can kiss goodbye to the human species.

Cacti will probably be OK though.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Hammerofscience (1249 days ago)
Latest comment:

Hi,

I am a scientist. Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas overall. However, the wavebands in which water absorbs energy are saturated. This means that the water essentially absorbs all of the IR in this spectral region, so adding more water doesn't make a difference. The wavebands of CO2 are not saturated, so adding more co2 makes a bigger difference. This is one significant reason why CO2 is an issue.

ReplyVote up (230)down (112)
Original comment
Latest comment:

Hi,

I am a scientist. Water vapour is the most significant greenhouse gas overall. However, the wavebands in which water absorbs energy are saturated. This means that the water essentially absorbs all of the IR in this spectral region, so adding more water doesn't make a difference. The wavebands of CO2 are not saturated, so adding more co2 makes a bigger difference. This is one significant reason why CO2 is an issue.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1258 days ago)

So what are you getting at exactly? The more water vapor that appears in the atmosphere the more clouds form and that will then reflect sunlight and shade out planet. It gets fixed automatically in your "feedback loop"

I'd like to see where you estimate thta $1.6 trillion a year. If that is so, we would be 160 trillion in debt due to the rise of CO2 in the last 100 years.

Have you thought about how you can clean up the atmosphere instead of complainging about it all the time? There are capture and store techniques that could be deployed but we are not doing that. Why not? Could it be that it's too expensive and the people of planet Earth don't think it's important enough to spend that kind of money? We could build huge terraforming systems (like they had in the movie Aliens) that can capture the air and then remove the carbon from the oxygen and then release the pure O2 back. That carbon would be a useful commodity that can be used over and over again. It might even pay for itself like your pet project, the Solar Roadways. At 1.6 Trillion a year, we could build some massive machines.

ReplyVote up (112)down (195)
Original comment

So what are you getting at exactly? The more water vapor that appears in the atmosphere the more clouds form and that will then reflect sunlight and shade out planet. It gets fixed automatically in your "feedback loop"

I'd like to see where you estimate thta $1.6 trillion a year. If that is so, we would be 160 trillion in debt due to the rise of CO2 in the last 100 years.

Have you thought about how you can clean up the atmosphere instead of complainging about it all the time? There are capture and store techniques that could be deployed but we are not doing that. Why not? Could it be that it's too expensive and the people of planet Earth don't think it's important enough to spend that kind of money? We could build huge terraforming systems (like they had in the movie Aliens) that can capture the air and then remove the carbon from the oxygen and then release the pure O2 back. That carbon would be a useful commodity that can be used over and over again. It might even pay for itself like your pet project, the Solar Roadways. At 1.6 Trillion a year, we could build some massive machines.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

I can't remember where I saw the cost of climate change was $1.6 trillion a year. But this New Scientist article says that 2 years of inaction on climate change has cost the world $8 trillion. LINK

As for Solar Roadways, I admitted I was wrong about that. Such a shame, they'd be so cool.

ReplyVote up (194)down (122)
Original comment

I can't remember where I saw the cost of climate change was $1.6 trillion a year. But this New Scientist article says that 2 years of inaction on climate change has cost the world $8 trillion. LINK

As for Solar Roadways, I admitted I was wrong about that. Such a shame, they'd be so cool.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1257 days ago)

Did you read in that article where it said it likely cost 8 trillion due to inaction but would have cost us 44 trillion if we did do something about it? Perhaps that's the reason we didn't. I don't know about you but I don't have 44 trillion lying around to spend.

Glad you finally came to your senses about the solar roadways. I admit they would be cool but they are definitely not a practical solution.

On the bright side, did you hear that Tesla gave away, for free, all their patents so other companies can create battery powered cars to compete? That's good news.

ReplyVote up (122)down (181)
Original comment

Did you read in that article where it said it likely cost 8 trillion due to inaction but would have cost us 44 trillion if we did do something about it? Perhaps that's the reason we didn't. I don't know about you but I don't have 44 trillion lying around to spend.

Glad you finally came to your senses about the solar roadways. I admit they would be cool but they are definitely not a practical solution.

On the bright side, did you hear that Tesla gave away, for free, all their patents so other companies can create battery powered cars to compete? That's good news.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

Yes I did read that. The $44 trillion is to electrify the planet, which is necessarily over a period of time. $44 trillion is only 11 years of inaction. It might cost $44 trillion in infrastructure, but it will come with an economic boom from the second industrial revolution.

Every year that we allow the Koch brothers to line their pockets even more, costs the rest of us $4 trillion. Think about that.

Bottom line is we have no choice, otherwise we go extinct. That's physics. Not even god can fool physics.

PS, great news about Tesla.

ReplyVote up (122)down (97)
Original comment

Yes I did read that. The $44 trillion is to electrify the planet, which is necessarily over a period of time. $44 trillion is only 11 years of inaction. It might cost $44 trillion in infrastructure, but it will come with an economic boom from the second industrial revolution.

Every year that we allow the Koch brothers to line their pockets even more, costs the rest of us $4 trillion. Think about that.

Bottom line is we have no choice, otherwise we go extinct. That's physics. Not even god can fool physics.

PS, great news about Tesla.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1257 days ago)

I would like to see an itemized billing for what we spent that $8 trillion on in the past 2 years. I still have doubts about its accuracy. That number was probably just made up and without knowing where the money went, that's what I will have to assume.

I'm not going to just arbitrarily believe some random news article about the accuracy of an $8 trillion number without some sort of backup documentation.

ReplyVote up (114)down (113)
Original comment

I would like to see an itemized billing for what we spent that $8 trillion on in the past 2 years. I still have doubts about its accuracy. That number was probably just made up and without knowing where the money went, that's what I will have to assume.

I'm not going to just arbitrarily believe some random news article about the accuracy of an $8 trillion number without some sort of backup documentation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

Whatever the real number, you can rest assured it is HUGE.

ReplyVote up (116)down (183)
Original comment

Whatever the real number, you can rest assured it is HUGE.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1257 days ago)

Why? Give me one big expense that doing nothing has cost us. Don't say that all the damage caused by hurricanes should be in that number because it's already has been debunked that hurricanes are the cause of AGW. Other than that (which I know was in the billions and not trillions), I don't know of any other costs.

ReplyVote up (171)down (116)
Original comment

Why? Give me one big expense that doing nothing has cost us. Don't say that all the damage caused by hurricanes should be in that number because it's already has been debunked that hurricanes are the cause of AGW. Other than that (which I know was in the billions and not trillions), I don't know of any other costs.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

Phew, I'm glad you debunked "hurricanes cause AGW". The clue is in the title - "Anthropogenic" Global Warming. Humans cause AGW by changing the balance of gases in the atmosphere.

If the average global temperature was 1 degree C cooler, then the weather we experience would be less extreme. We would still have storms, heatwaves, droughts, flooding, forest fires, crop failures, etc. but the damage would be far less because we could cope.

As weather gets more extreme, the rising cost of damage is not linear. For example, if Katrina was just a bit weaker and the levees were not breached, then the cost would have been minimal. But that little bit extra heat in the storm wiped out New Orleans at a huge cost.

Average extreme weather doesn't do much damage because we have built our infrastructure to cope. EXTREME weather is very costly because everything breaks down with far-reaching global consequences.

ReplyVote up (117)down (138)
Original comment

Phew, I'm glad you debunked "hurricanes cause AGW". The clue is in the title - "Anthropogenic" Global Warming. Humans cause AGW by changing the balance of gases in the atmosphere.

If the average global temperature was 1 degree C cooler, then the weather we experience would be less extreme. We would still have storms, heatwaves, droughts, flooding, forest fires, crop failures, etc. but the damage would be far less because we could cope.

As weather gets more extreme, the rising cost of damage is not linear. For example, if Katrina was just a bit weaker and the levees were not breached, then the cost would have been minimal. But that little bit extra heat in the storm wiped out New Orleans at a huge cost.

Average extreme weather doesn't do much damage because we have built our infrastructure to cope. EXTREME weather is very costly because everything breaks down with far-reaching global consequences.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1257 days ago)

Okay, you got me. I wrote the sentence wrong. I meant to say that AGW does not cause hurricanes. Hurricanes have been around forever and there were more category 5 hurricanes before AGW so how can you possibly state that those were caused by humans? Can you explain how the 1928 Okeechobee cateogry 5 hurricane was created since that was prior to AGW? It cost an estimated $108 billion in damage when adjusted for inflation (to 2005).

Now let's get this straight. The cost of Katrina was estimated at $128 billion (when adjusted for inflation) and Sandy was estimated to cost $62 billion. Those were the two most expensive storms in history so how can that add up to 8 trillion in the last 2 years considering that Katrina was in 2006 and that was 8 years ago.

So can you give me any example of where those huge costs are coming from so I know that 8 trillion wasn't just made up? We know the costs of all the hurricanes in the last 2 years don't add up to that much even if they were caused by AGW.

ReplyVote up (134)down (168)
Original comment

Okay, you got me. I wrote the sentence wrong. I meant to say that AGW does not cause hurricanes. Hurricanes have been around forever and there were more category 5 hurricanes before AGW so how can you possibly state that those were caused by humans? Can you explain how the 1928 Okeechobee cateogry 5 hurricane was created since that was prior to AGW? It cost an estimated $108 billion in damage when adjusted for inflation (to 2005).

Now let's get this straight. The cost of Katrina was estimated at $128 billion (when adjusted for inflation) and Sandy was estimated to cost $62 billion. Those were the two most expensive storms in history so how can that add up to 8 trillion in the last 2 years considering that Katrina was in 2006 and that was 8 years ago.

So can you give me any example of where those huge costs are coming from so I know that 8 trillion wasn't just made up? We know the costs of all the hurricanes in the last 2 years don't add up to that much even if they were caused by AGW.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

You didn't answer how you're supposed to. You're supposed to say: "But the climate wouldn't be 1 degree cooler because humans didn't cause the 1 degree rise. That was caused by..."

Where have you been in the last 2 years? Did you not hear about the heatwaves, droughts and polar vortex that gripped the US. Or the record floods in the UK, and more recently in Bosnia. Or the heatwaves, record temperatures, and forest fires in Australia. Or the strongest hurricane (Typhoon Haiyan) on record devastating the Philippines. Or the horrendous storms in China. Extreme weather is everywhere - in Pakistan, Russia, South America, Africa... You can deny it as much as you like, but we all know that extreme weather is now normal.

There are many other indirect costs. The value of land and property in low lying coastal and other flood risk areas have plummeted. Many livelihoods are lost. I have a friend who will soon shut down his ski resort because there is less snow every year. How about the disruption to people's lives and the cost that that puts on the National Health Service?

I'm sure there are other costs - maybe you can help me out with a few more examples?

ReplyVote up (120)down (123)
Original comment

You didn't answer how you're supposed to. You're supposed to say: "But the climate wouldn't be 1 degree cooler because humans didn't cause the 1 degree rise. That was caused by..."

Where have you been in the last 2 years? Did you not hear about the heatwaves, droughts and polar vortex that gripped the US. Or the record floods in the UK, and more recently in Bosnia. Or the heatwaves, record temperatures, and forest fires in Australia. Or the strongest hurricane (Typhoon Haiyan) on record devastating the Philippines. Or the horrendous storms in China. Extreme weather is everywhere - in Pakistan, Russia, South America, Africa... You can deny it as much as you like, but we all know that extreme weather is now normal.

There are many other indirect costs. The value of land and property in low lying coastal and other flood risk areas have plummeted. Many livelihoods are lost. I have a friend who will soon shut down his ski resort because there is less snow every year. How about the disruption to people's lives and the cost that that puts on the National Health Service?

I'm sure there are other costs - maybe you can help me out with a few more examples?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1257 days ago)

I doubt all those costs would add up to 8 trillion. Did you see how the two biggest storms in history was a drop in a bucket compared to 8 trillion? I think you're stretching it here and have no real idea of the costs so you just believe what you were told by others. We all recommend that you use some deductive reasoning here instead of just looking at what the news wants you to know but you keep just believing random crap.

How many trillions is your friend going to lose when he shuts down ihis ski business?

Here's another thing to think about. Have you considered that "costs" actually equals income for someone else? For example, you have a hurricane that destroys a house. That house gets rebuilt and the people that build it are employed and are earning money that they would otherwise not earn. Did you remember to offset that 8 billion by the new GDP that was generated? Doubtful because you are only one sided in your views.

ReplyVote up (192)down (101)
Original comment

I doubt all those costs would add up to 8 trillion. Did you see how the two biggest storms in history was a drop in a bucket compared to 8 trillion? I think you're stretching it here and have no real idea of the costs so you just believe what you were told by others. We all recommend that you use some deductive reasoning here instead of just looking at what the news wants you to know but you keep just believing random crap.

How many trillions is your friend going to lose when he shuts down ihis ski business?

Here's another thing to think about. Have you considered that "costs" actually equals income for someone else? For example, you have a hurricane that destroys a house. That house gets rebuilt and the people that build it are employed and are earning money that they would otherwise not earn. Did you remember to offset that 8 billion by the new GDP that was generated? Doubtful because you are only one sided in your views.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

It's ridiculous discussing the cost of climate change the way we are. We are both saying things with no backing. I just pointed to a New Scientist study that claims it's $4 trillion a year, and another (can't remember which) claims it's $1.6 trillion. In my books, both figures are huge.

But you disagree with an argument so compelling I bow down to your unsung genius - Climate change is good for job creation. The more carbon we pump into the air, the more extreme our weather gets, smashing up everything in its path, thereby providing plenty of work for bricklayers, boosting the economy and the well-being of the human race. Did I already say you're a genius? Man, I wish I was you.

ReplyVote up (97)down (110)
Original comment

It's ridiculous discussing the cost of climate change the way we are. We are both saying things with no backing. I just pointed to a New Scientist study that claims it's $4 trillion a year, and another (can't remember which) claims it's $1.6 trillion. In my books, both figures are huge.

But you disagree with an argument so compelling I bow down to your unsung genius - Climate change is good for job creation. The more carbon we pump into the air, the more extreme our weather gets, smashing up everything in its path, thereby providing plenty of work for bricklayers, boosting the economy and the well-being of the human race. Did I already say you're a genius? Man, I wish I was you.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1257 days ago)

You misunderstood my point. Our default position should be to not believe anything unless there is proof. Nobody has any backing for the numbers they quote so my default postion is that it's probably not true especially when those numbers appear highly inflated. Now if you can show how they came up with those numbers, that gives me the opportunity to look deeper into it and then I may or may not agree with it. But until you at least can show me the details, it's not an accurate number in my opinion.

ReplyVote up (107)down (97)
Original comment

You misunderstood my point. Our default position should be to not believe anything unless there is proof. Nobody has any backing for the numbers they quote so my default postion is that it's probably not true especially when those numbers appear highly inflated. Now if you can show how they came up with those numbers, that gives me the opportunity to look deeper into it and then I may or may not agree with it. But until you at least can show me the details, it's not an accurate number in my opinion.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

You didn't spend any time finding out anything about the International Energy Agency report. So you somehow jumped to the conclusion that the IEA just pulled numbers out of thin air.

Then you say " it's probably not true especially when those numbers appear highly inflated. " Those are numbers you know nothing about because you haven't bothered to find out. And "appear highly inflated". Unless you know what the numbers are based on, you cant judge.

You can read more about the IEA report here: LINK

ReplyVote up (108)down (110)
Original comment

You didn't spend any time finding out anything about the International Energy Agency report. So you somehow jumped to the conclusion that the IEA just pulled numbers out of thin air.

Then you say " it's probably not true especially when those numbers appear highly inflated. " Those are numbers you know nothing about because you haven't bothered to find out. And "appear highly inflated". Unless you know what the numbers are based on, you cant judge.

You can read more about the IEA report here: LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1257 days ago)

Walter, someone who quotes a number of 1c for a 30 % increase in co2 is someone who doesn't / can't understand the science. ps from the "science" the quoted figure for a doubling of co2 is 1.2c.max without feedbacks. Its logarithmic so where you get 1c for 30% increase i dont know.. Please clarify, walter. oh and try and use real science working in your answer, not "crap" you've been fed

ReplyVote up (153)down (79)
Original comment

Walter, someone who quotes a number of 1c for a 30 % increase in co2 is someone who doesn't / can't understand the science. ps from the "science" the quoted figure for a doubling of co2 is 1.2c.max without feedbacks. Its logarithmic so where you get 1c for 30% increase i dont know.. Please clarify, walter. oh and try and use real science working in your answer, not "crap" you've been fed

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1256 days ago)

I never said a 30% rise in CO2 will result in a 1C rise. That's just what has happened since the Industrial Revolution.

ReplyVote up (101)down (87)
Original comment

I never said a 30% rise in CO2 will result in a 1C rise. That's just what has happened since the Industrial Revolution.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1256 days ago)

But walter its not being observed in reality. Its delusional to insist its happenig when all the empirical evidence is pointing to the fact that it isn't.

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

But walter its not being observed in reality. Its delusional to insist its happenig when all the empirical evidence is pointing to the fact that it isn't.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1256 days ago)

Really? You must be from another planet.

ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment

Really? You must be from another planet.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1255 days ago)

Walter, even the granuid has noticed, and has a recent article trying to push/move the goalposts the idea that surface temperatures are allegedly now a poor measure of "climate change". Do try and keep up with the official dogma Walter,

ReplyVote up (74)down (101)
Original comment

Walter, even the granuid has noticed, and has a recent article trying to push/move the goalposts the idea that surface temperatures are allegedly now a poor measure of "climate change". Do try and keep up with the official dogma Walter,

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1257 days ago)

The link you provided did not have any details on where that 8 trillion number came from. Sorry WalterEgo but this is junk science unless you show your work. You cannot make claims like that without some sort of backup documentation.

ReplyVote up (103)down (92)
Original comment

The link you provided did not have any details on where that 8 trillion number came from. Sorry WalterEgo but this is junk science unless you show your work. You cannot make claims like that without some sort of backup documentation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1256 days ago)

So your definition of junk science is any science that you can't be bothered to find out about. This is the problem with democracy - people like you get a vote.

The IEA didn't specifically report on the cost of inaction, or the cost climate change (as you'd know if you bothered to follow some of the links). In 2012, the IEA estimated the cost of transitioning to an electric world was $36 trillion. In 2014, they estimated $44 trillion. A New Scientist journalist made a simple calculation and came up with: "Two years of inaction has cost the world $8 trillion."

Ultimately, the cost of inaction is extinction. So we have no choice but to electrify the planet. And since every year the transitioning costs probably rise by a few trillions, it makes sense to make the transition asap. The Koch brothers are rich enough already. They can afford to leave the oil in the ground.

ReplyVote up (197)down (90)
Original comment

So your definition of junk science is any science that you can't be bothered to find out about. This is the problem with democracy - people like you get a vote.

The IEA didn't specifically report on the cost of inaction, or the cost climate change (as you'd know if you bothered to follow some of the links). In 2012, the IEA estimated the cost of transitioning to an electric world was $36 trillion. In 2014, they estimated $44 trillion. A New Scientist journalist made a simple calculation and came up with: "Two years of inaction has cost the world $8 trillion."

Ultimately, the cost of inaction is extinction. So we have no choice but to electrify the planet. And since every year the transitioning costs probably rise by a few trillions, it makes sense to make the transition asap. The Koch brothers are rich enough already. They can afford to leave the oil in the ground.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1256 days ago)

In other words, AGW has not cost the world $8 trillion in the last 2 years. That's why we cannot find out where all the money was spent. You tried to confuse me into thinking that's the cost of all that extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere but it turns out that it isn't.

Basically it hasn't been costing us anything other than it will cost more in the future if we wish to convert our existing infrastructure to clean energy. The longer we wait, the more it will cost. Well, that's the same story for almost anything. If you buy a house today, it will save you money than if you wait 20 years to buy it.

I think what the world is trying to do is consume all the cheap energy first. Then once all that is gone we can start using more expensive energy. Seems reasonable to me and makes good economic sense actually.

ReplyVote up (100)down (177)
Original comment

In other words, AGW has not cost the world $8 trillion in the last 2 years. That's why we cannot find out where all the money was spent. You tried to confuse me into thinking that's the cost of all that extra CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere but it turns out that it isn't.

Basically it hasn't been costing us anything other than it will cost more in the future if we wish to convert our existing infrastructure to clean energy. The longer we wait, the more it will cost. Well, that's the same story for almost anything. If you buy a house today, it will save you money than if you wait 20 years to buy it.

I think what the world is trying to do is consume all the cheap energy first. Then once all that is gone we can start using more expensive energy. Seems reasonable to me and makes good economic sense actually.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1256 days ago)

You really are thick.

ReplyVote up (176)down (181)
Original comment

You really are thick.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1256 days ago)

No, you're just trying to confuse people into thinking that AGW has cost us 8 trillion in the past 2 years. Then when I challenged you to show me the details where that money went, you changed your story and say that's how much extra it costs us by delaying the conversion of our current electrical systems into clean energy.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

No, you're just trying to confuse people into thinking that AGW has cost us 8 trillion in the past 2 years. Then when I challenged you to show me the details where that money went, you changed your story and say that's how much extra it costs us by delaying the conversion of our current electrical systems into clean energy.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1256 days ago)

I'm sorry, I somehow managed to confuse you without even trying. I didn't "change my story", I just bothered to read more than the first paragraph of the New Scientist article. Here it is again if you want another go. LINK If you don't understand anything, just ask.

ReplyVote up (82)down (101)
Original comment

I'm sorry, I somehow managed to confuse you without even trying. I didn't "change my story", I just bothered to read more than the first paragraph of the New Scientist article. Here it is again if you want another go. LINK If you don't understand anything, just ask.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1257 days ago)

I want a Tesla. The two reasons I don't buy one is the upfront costs and there are no charging stations nearby so I would have to charge it using my own electricity. It's supposedly free if you charge it at one of designated Tesla charging stations.

ReplyVote up (87)down (138)
Original comment

I want a Tesla. The two reasons I don't buy one is the upfront costs and there are no charging stations nearby so I would have to charge it using my own electricity. It's supposedly free if you charge it at one of designated Tesla charging stations.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1260 days ago)

I'm impressed. You've been silent on this issue until now. Original Mad and I have been debating this with WalterEgo alone so it's nice to know someone else isn't just regurgitating what they hear on the news and is actually using some common sense. Welcome to the debate.

ReplyVote up (113)down (112)
Original comment

I'm impressed. You've been silent on this issue until now. Original Mad and I have been debating this with WalterEgo alone so it's nice to know someone else isn't just regurgitating what they hear on the news and is actually using some common sense. Welcome to the debate.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

He seems to be locked into the amount of C02 that humans produce to the exclusion of all other relevant information. I don't think that anyone will change his mind on this. Too bad there are so many others that think the same way. The governments are force feeding this issue and scaring people with it, It seems that it is too hard for some to look beyond that and figure out for themselves how the bigger picture shows that it is nothing but bull. I am gratified to see that some governments are begining to wake up and are at least starting to question "man made global warming". There are thousands of scientists that already deny it but most people have a religious adhearance to the IPCC and will not give any credit to opposing scientists views. The fact that many names on the IPPC panel are not even climate scientists seems to not matter eaither.

ReplyVote up (201)down (112)
Original comment

He seems to be locked into the amount of C02 that humans produce to the exclusion of all other relevant information. I don't think that anyone will change his mind on this. Too bad there are so many others that think the same way. The governments are force feeding this issue and scaring people with it, It seems that it is too hard for some to look beyond that and figure out for themselves how the bigger picture shows that it is nothing but bull. I am gratified to see that some governments are begining to wake up and are at least starting to question "man made global warming". There are thousands of scientists that already deny it but most people have a religious adhearance to the IPCC and will not give any credit to opposing scientists views. The fact that many names on the IPPC panel are not even climate scientists seems to not matter eaither.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

Of course I'm locked into the amount of CO2 humans produce. It's because we are talking about human activity that affects the climate. Duh!

ReplyVote up (101)down (200)
Original comment

Of course I'm locked into the amount of CO2 humans produce. It's because we are talking about human activity that affects the climate. Duh!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

So... Are you admitting that you are excluding all other relevant info and all other legitimate climate scientists who deny "Man made" climate change because of the amount of C02 humans are emitting? Because that is what I said. You cannot take one line out and try to throw that back :P

ReplyVote up (109)down (93)
Original comment

So... Are you admitting that you are excluding all other relevant info and all other legitimate climate scientists who deny "Man made" climate change because of the amount of C02 humans are emitting? Because that is what I said. You cannot take one line out and try to throw that back :P

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

Sort of. I'm excluding 'natural' changes because we are talking about how human activity affects the climate. And because there have been no natural events in the recent past big enough to affect the climate - like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

I'm focusing on CO2 because it is the main greenhouse gas we emit. There are others, eg. methane, but conversations would get too complicated.

ReplyVote up (106)down (115)
Original comment

Sort of. I'm excluding 'natural' changes because we are talking about how human activity affects the climate. And because there have been no natural events in the recent past big enough to affect the climate - like the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs.

I'm focusing on CO2 because it is the main greenhouse gas we emit. There are others, eg. methane, but conversations would get too complicated.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1260 days ago)

CO2 may be the biggest greenhouse gas that we emit but it's by far a much smaller portion than water vapor. Lots of water vapor turning into clouds can have a cooling effect.

Did you remember the name of that scientist that said the earth would automatically fix the weather problems? He was saying once the temperature became warmer, more water would evaporate causing additional clouds and that would begin to cool the planet again. What do you think about that?

ReplyVote up (107)down (115)
Original comment

CO2 may be the biggest greenhouse gas that we emit but it's by far a much smaller portion than water vapor. Lots of water vapor turning into clouds can have a cooling effect.

Did you remember the name of that scientist that said the earth would automatically fix the weather problems? He was saying once the temperature became warmer, more water would evaporate causing additional clouds and that would begin to cool the planet again. What do you think about that?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1258 days ago)

That was Richard Lindzen.

ReplyVote up (101)down (109)
Original comment

That was Richard Lindzen.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

Yes, there are many "feedback loops" and they affect each other in a very complicated relationship. You can't just pick one "feedback" and ignore the others. Problem is, I'm not expertise enough to judge for myself.

This is my dilemma. I can trust the huge concensus of climate scientists, or I can trust the oil industry. Who would you trust?

ReplyVote up (102)down (118)
Original comment

Yes, there are many "feedback loops" and they affect each other in a very complicated relationship. You can't just pick one "feedback" and ignore the others. Problem is, I'm not expertise enough to judge for myself.

This is my dilemma. I can trust the huge concensus of climate scientists, or I can trust the oil industry. Who would you trust?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1259 days ago)

walter, cant you do better than keep going on about a fictional consensus., its dead in the water, long live real science

ReplyVote up (102)down (192)
Original comment

walter, cant you do better than keep going on about a fictional consensus., its dead in the water, long live real science

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1259 days ago)

So you would trust the oil industry?

ReplyVote up (100)down (203)
Original comment

So you would trust the oil industry?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1259 days ago)

Thats the problem with you walter, you suffer from illogical reasoning, Because someone ( ie me ), knows (with good reason, good science education and good company) that the 97% argument is pure and utter nonsense, it does not logically follow that I automatically accept every pronouncement and/or are in the pay of the "oil" companies. Additionally your arguememt smacks of projection of pathological need to follow someone else's creed onto other people. Please learn to evaluate and think for youself instead of just echoing what other people have said.

ReplyVote up (102)down (105)
Original comment

Thats the problem with you walter, you suffer from illogical reasoning, Because someone ( ie me ), knows (with good reason, good science education and good company) that the 97% argument is pure and utter nonsense, it does not logically follow that I automatically accept every pronouncement and/or are in the pay of the "oil" companies. Additionally your arguememt smacks of projection of pathological need to follow someone else's creed onto other people. Please learn to evaluate and think for youself instead of just echoing what other people have said.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1259 days ago)

Forget about the 97% argument. I've been through it with cengland0, and he no longer participates in climate change debates. I can only assume he has accepted he was wrong.

Just answer me this. Why has the atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C in the last 150 years? And how does a 30% increase in CO2 not trap more heat?

Simple school physics answers will do. Good luck.

ReplyVote up (122)down (93)
Original comment

Forget about the 97% argument. I've been through it with cengland0, and he no longer participates in climate change debates. I can only assume he has accepted he was wrong.

Just answer me this. Why has the atmosphere warmed by 1 degree C in the last 150 years? And how does a 30% increase in CO2 not trap more heat?

Simple school physics answers will do. Good luck.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1259 days ago)

150 years ???. Walter just for your info according to the "cagw theory" no warming before 1950 ( only 64 years ago) can be attributed to alleged human generated co2 because not enough human generated co2 will have accumulated by 1950 to create a detectable alleged human derived warming. Therefore according to the "cagw theory" all warming before 1950 can only be natural, Goodness me, why do you prattle on and express unqualified support for an idea, of which you simply and obviously have zero comprehension of how it is supposed to work, or the bounds set upon it, and all you can repeat is the political generated mantras fed to you. You might as well go and ask your fabled fellow cagw advocates to explain the warming and cooling periods previous to 1950, because quite clearly the co2 cagw theory cant explain that, although they do seem hell bent on trying adjusting the variation away using dubious methods.

ReplyVote up (194)down (99)
Original comment

150 years ???. Walter just for your info according to the "cagw theory" no warming before 1950 ( only 64 years ago) can be attributed to alleged human generated co2 because not enough human generated co2 will have accumulated by 1950 to create a detectable alleged human derived warming. Therefore according to the "cagw theory" all warming before 1950 can only be natural, Goodness me, why do you prattle on and express unqualified support for an idea, of which you simply and obviously have zero comprehension of how it is supposed to work, or the bounds set upon it, and all you can repeat is the political generated mantras fed to you. You might as well go and ask your fabled fellow cagw advocates to explain the warming and cooling periods previous to 1950, because quite clearly the co2 cagw theory cant explain that, although they do seem hell bent on trying adjusting the variation away using dubious methods.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1259 days ago)

You are squirting around again. Please answer the following questions:

1. If the 1 degree warming is not caused by the 30% extra CO2 burning fossil fuels has added to the atmosphere, then what is warming the planet?

2. Considering CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, how can a 30% increase in the atmosphere not affect the climate?

Please keep your answers short and sweet, so even the non-scientist can understand.

ReplyVote up (97)down (110)
Original comment

You are squirting around again. Please answer the following questions:

1. If the 1 degree warming is not caused by the 30% extra CO2 burning fossil fuels has added to the atmosphere, then what is warming the planet?

2. Considering CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas, how can a 30% increase in the atmosphere not affect the climate?

Please keep your answers short and sweet, so even the non-scientist can understand.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1258 days ago)

Actually walter if you are trying to argue theory you shouldl know water vapour and liquid water is far and away the dominant "greenhouse" gas to the extent that over 70% of the earths surface (oceans) co2 probably has almost no effect at all.

ReplyVote up (188)down (169)
Original comment

Actually walter if you are trying to argue theory you shouldl know water vapour and liquid water is far and away the dominant "greenhouse" gas to the extent that over 70% of the earths surface (oceans) co2 probably has almost no effect at all.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Satan's Asshole (1258 days ago)

dumb fuk denialist like yourself don't deserve any respect so you can take your cretin followers ,cengfuk zero included ,and you can go suck off each other whilst pretending that water vapor (just like marijuana is to drugs) is the dominant greenhouse gas hence the most dangerous one unlike CO2 (meth or krocodil in drug analogies) who probably has no effect at all, you stupid cu*t.

You and your denialist following fuKs can take your lizard people iluminati ipcc conspiracy and shove it up your arseholes while i piss on your foreheads.

GO FU*K YOURSEVES SPINNING, WITH A CACTUS!

ReplyVote up (210)down (100)
Original comment

dumb fuk denialist like yourself don't deserve any respect so you can take your cretin followers ,cengfuk zero included ,and you can go suck off each other whilst pretending that water vapor (just like marijuana is to drugs) is the dominant greenhouse gas hence the most dangerous one unlike CO2 (meth or krocodil in drug analogies) who probably has no effect at all, you stupid cu*t.

You and your denialist following fuKs can take your lizard people iluminati ipcc conspiracy and shove it up your arseholes while i piss on your foreheads.

GO FU*K YOURSEVES SPINNING, WITH A CACTUS!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1258 days ago)

Ah ha, shooting the messanger, a characteristic and sadly I have to say not unexpected response. But of course you could simply look up the science (if you can understand it), It is generally agreed amongst the proposers of the "cagw" theory that co2 is supposed to induce an increase in water vapour, and hence a catastrophic result, co2 cant do it on its own Fyi water vapour axccording to the theoty is supposed to cause 95% of the "greenhouse" effect. it is after all a very similar triatomic molecule,and for every 1 co2 molecule in the atmosphere, thre are 100 h2o molecules

ReplyVote up (104)down (101)
Original comment

Ah ha, shooting the messanger, a characteristic and sadly I have to say not unexpected response. But of course you could simply look up the science (if you can understand it), It is generally agreed amongst the proposers of the "cagw" theory that co2 is supposed to induce an increase in water vapour, and hence a catastrophic result, co2 cant do it on its own Fyi water vapour axccording to the theoty is supposed to cause 95% of the "greenhouse" effect. it is after all a very similar triatomic molecule,and for every 1 co2 molecule in the atmosphere, thre are 100 h2o molecules

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1257 days ago)

CO2 is significant for several reasons. But first, you have to understand the concept of balance. It's not the amount per se of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that matters, it's about having the right amount to prevent us from freezing, or boiling to death. Natural cycles and feedbacks have kept the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere relatively unchanged for many thousands of years and life has evolved to suit these conditions.

When there's a natural event big enough to affect the climate (eg. a big volcano eruption or asteroid strike), these are one-off events that once the impact is over, natural cycles and feedbacks will tend to pull the climate back to a state of equilibrium.

But human activity is not a one-off event. It is relentless. If we pump 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere just one year, that would be no problem because the next year, the natural cycles and feedbacks would slowly 'heal' the effect of extra CO2 - for example: CO2 is plant food, so plants will flourish and eat up much of that extra CO2. But if the next year we pump another 30 billion tons into the atmosphere, then natural cycles and feedbacks get overwhelmed. And then the year after that, we pump another 30 billion tons (actually more), and cut down some trees for good measure...

CO2 is more significant than water vapour in terms of warming the planet. If we increased the water vapour in the atmosphere by 30%, then the world may warm, or cool (I'm not sure how the cooling effect of clouds compares with the water vapour's heat trapping abilities). We would probably experience devastating floods but as in Noah, the rains will stop as the water falls out of the sky, and the natural cycles and feedbacks will pull back the climate to a state of equilibrium.

But increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% is different. It may only raise the global temperature by 1 degree C, but it remains in the atmosphere for 30 - 95 years. That 30 billion tons we added last year will remain in the atmosphere till long after I'm dead. And the 35 billion tons we add in 2014, will also stay in the atmosphere for 30 - 95 years. And in 2015, we will add another... etc.

It is worth remembering that to either side of us, we have 2 dead planets, Venus, which is unbearably hot as a result of runaway global warming triggered by CO2, and Mars which had running water once, but today is a cold desert planet.

I suspect the universe is full of life that never got past this crucial time - when a species outgrows its planet before it has figured out how to colonise a neighbouring planet or star system.

ReplyVote up (107)down (102)
Original comment

CO2 is significant for several reasons. But first, you have to understand the concept of balance. It's not the amount per se of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that matters, it's about having the right amount to prevent us from freezing, or boiling to death. Natural cycles and feedbacks have kept the balance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere relatively unchanged for many thousands of years and life has evolved to suit these conditions.

When there's a natural event big enough to affect the climate (eg. a big volcano eruption or asteroid strike), these are one-off events that once the impact is over, natural cycles and feedbacks will tend to pull the climate back to a state of equilibrium.

But human activity is not a one-off event. It is relentless. If we pump 30 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere just one year, that would be no problem because the next year, the natural cycles and feedbacks would slowly 'heal' the effect of extra CO2 - for example: CO2 is plant food, so plants will flourish and eat up much of that extra CO2. But if the next year we pump another 30 billion tons into the atmosphere, then natural cycles and feedbacks get overwhelmed. And then the year after that, we pump another 30 billion tons (actually more), and cut down some trees for good measure...

CO2 is more significant than water vapour in terms of warming the planet. If we increased the water vapour in the atmosphere by 30%, then the world may warm, or cool (I'm not sure how the cooling effect of clouds compares with the water vapour's heat trapping abilities). We would probably experience devastating floods but as in Noah, the rains will stop as the water falls out of the sky, and the natural cycles and feedbacks will pull back the climate to a state of equilibrium.

But increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere by 30% is different. It may only raise the global temperature by 1 degree C, but it remains in the atmosphere for 30 - 95 years. That 30 billion tons we added last year will remain in the atmosphere till long after I'm dead. And the 35 billion tons we add in 2014, will also stay in the atmosphere for 30 - 95 years. And in 2015, we will add another... etc.

It is worth remembering that to either side of us, we have 2 dead planets, Venus, which is unbearably hot as a result of runaway global warming triggered by CO2, and Mars which had running water once, but today is a cold desert planet.

I suspect the universe is full of life that never got past this crucial time - when a species outgrows its planet before it has figured out how to colonise a neighbouring planet or star system.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1259 days ago)

I am not wrong. I am still right and you are the one that is wrong. I do not participate now because there are plenty of other people willing to waste their time with you. I have better things to do with my time than to talk to a brick wall.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

I am not wrong. I am still right and you are the one that is wrong. I do not participate now because there are plenty of other people willing to waste their time with you. I have better things to do with my time than to talk to a brick wall.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

Really? There have been no natural events recently that could affect the climate? How about the sun? Have you looked into the sun's activities lately? You are missing so much information when you get stuck on Human C02 emission!

ReplyVote up (98)down (176)
Original comment

Really? There have been no natural events recently that could affect the climate? How about the sun? Have you looked into the sun's activities lately? You are missing so much information when you get stuck on Human C02 emission!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

You misunderstand, or maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think of the sun's activities as an 'event' because it is ongoing.

The temperature has risen about 1 degree C in the last 150 years. There is no natural event that can account for that rise. In the last 150 years, CO2 in the atmosphere has risen about 30% due to human activity.

If you think the extra 30% CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature rise, then you have to explain what did cause the rise. You'd also have to explain how a 30% increase in CO2 does not trap more heat.

ReplyVote up (98)down (163)
Original comment

You misunderstand, or maybe I wasn't clear. I don't think of the sun's activities as an 'event' because it is ongoing.

The temperature has risen about 1 degree C in the last 150 years. There is no natural event that can account for that rise. In the last 150 years, CO2 in the atmosphere has risen about 30% due to human activity.

If you think the extra 30% CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature rise, then you have to explain what did cause the rise. You'd also have to explain how a 30% increase in CO2 does not trap more heat.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

Thank you :-)

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Thank you :-)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

What are you talking about? Originalmad and you are the same person.

Anyway, I quite enjoy talking about this issue because I've got a huge advantage: 97% of climate scientists are on my side.

ReplyVote up (97)down (102)
Original comment

What are you talking about? Originalmad and you are the same person.

Anyway, I quite enjoy talking about this issue because I've got a huge advantage: 97% of climate scientists are on my side.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

I think you will find that it is 97% of climate scientists in the IPCC. Of which do not make up the panel, they have many non climate scientists on them. Also... There are names on that panel that were put there without permission from the owners. Scientists who dissagreed but had there names used anyway. I don't think that 97% of anyone agrees with your possition anymore. The world is changing day by day and more and more of the population are waking up to the fact that they are feeding us bull.

ReplyVote up (192)down (105)
Original comment

I think you will find that it is 97% of climate scientists in the IPCC. Of which do not make up the panel, they have many non climate scientists on them. Also... There are names on that panel that were put there without permission from the owners. Scientists who dissagreed but had there names used anyway. I don't think that 97% of anyone agrees with your possition anymore. The world is changing day by day and more and more of the population are waking up to the fact that they are feeding us bull.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

Actually, it's 97% of peer-reviewed climate science research papers between 1991 and 2011 said that human activity is a significant factor in climate change. LINK

ReplyVote up (183)down (105)
Original comment

Actually, it's 97% of peer-reviewed climate science research papers between 1991 and 2011 said that human activity is a significant factor in climate change. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

Ahhhh... Well, That is far from 97% of climate scientists isn't it, Lol. How many papers would that be? What percentage of actual climate scientists would that represent?

ReplyVote up (94)down (117)
Original comment

Ahhhh... Well, That is far from 97% of climate scientists isn't it, Lol. How many papers would that be? What percentage of actual climate scientists would that represent?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1260 days ago)

Details are in the Guardian article.

ReplyVote up (170)down (104)
Original comment

Details are in the Guardian article.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: originalmad (1260 days ago)

just a heads up walter, the guardian printed an article recently by Dr richard Tol who has analysed the recent 97% nonsensus and found it to be riddled with errors. ps If you look through the comments you will find comments by dana nuttytelli have been deleted by the mods

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

just a heads up walter, the guardian printed an article recently by Dr richard Tol who has analysed the recent 97% nonsensus and found it to be riddled with errors. ps If you look through the comments you will find comments by dana nuttytelli have been deleted by the mods

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
iknowlessthanyoudo iknowlessthanyoudo (1260 days ago)

Good try Walter. The sound bytes on ExxonMobile commercials are far sexier than comprehending the many fold significant molecular difference in CO2's ability to trap solar heat in our atmosphere. Darwin will reward us in the end.

ReplyVote up (93)down (101)
Original comment

Good try Walter. The sound bytes on ExxonMobile commercials are far sexier than comprehending the many fold significant molecular difference in CO2's ability to trap solar heat in our atmosphere. Darwin will reward us in the end.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1260 days ago)

There you go again spewing false information. There is nothing that shows 97% of climate scientists believe in human caused global warming. What you're getting confused is the few papers that were analyzed and 97% of those were supposedly claiming that humans are the cause. Several of those papers could have been written by the same scientists and some scientists have come forward to say that what the analysis claimed did not represent what they said in their paper. Wouldn't it be great to get a list of the scientists that do believe in anthropological global warming so they can defend their positions? Of course that hasn't been released but there is a list of 750 scientists that wrote to congress stating why they don't believe. Their names and credentials are public knowledge.

Originalmad said it best, you cannot prove something with a survey. Show evidence -- not a list of scientists. If you use your method, you would say that 100% of preachers believe there is a god so it must be true.

ReplyVote up (78)down (186)
Original comment

There you go again spewing false information. There is nothing that shows 97% of climate scientists believe in human caused global warming. What you're getting confused is the few papers that were analyzed and 97% of those were supposedly claiming that humans are the cause. Several of those papers could have been written by the same scientists and some scientists have come forward to say that what the analysis claimed did not represent what they said in their paper. Wouldn't it be great to get a list of the scientists that do believe in anthropological global warming so they can defend their positions? Of course that hasn't been released but there is a list of 750 scientists that wrote to congress stating why they don't believe. Their names and credentials are public knowledge.

Originalmad said it best, you cannot prove something with a survey. Show evidence -- not a list of scientists. If you use your method, you would say that 100% of preachers believe there is a god so it must be true.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
dananddiana dananddiana (1260 days ago)

Great analogy. and so true of so many :-)

ReplyVote up (148)down (82)
Original comment

Great analogy. and so true of so many :-)

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
How do climate scientists predict the future?
How do climate scientists predict the future?
Cows and climate change
Cows and climate change
The National - Climate change Q&A with Bob McDonald
The National - Climate change Q&A with Bob McDonald
China surpasses USA in renewable energy
China surpasses USA in renewable energy
TYT - Climate collapse outpacing scientific models
TYT - Climate collapse outpacing scientific models