SHARE
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Vote up (25) down (16)
Climate change in blunt, plain terms

Climate change in blunt, plain terms

(17:44) Contender for the most important TED lecture on our future. Staff writer at Grist.org David Roberts describes the causes and effects of climate change in simple terms. The conclusion is painfully blunt - we are stuck between the unthinkable (living on a planet where if you ventured outside, you'd die of hotness), and the impossible (the global, co-ordinated, intelligent, political action necessary within the next 5-10 years, is impossible). Unfortunately, this is not scare-mongering, it's reality. The message is clear: Everybody's job, for the rest of their lives, is to make the impossible, possible.

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: Kerry (2957 days ago)
Anyone see the big flaw? He automatically assumes climate change is due to the human element...this is precisely what has not been determined,whether or not man kind is responsible for the change..or not.
ReplyVote up (272)down (151)
Original comment
Anyone see the big flaw? He automatically assumes climate change is due to the human element...this is precisely what has not been determined,whether or not man kind is responsible for the change..or not.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: RareBeef (2954 days ago)
Anyeon else spot something smug here? Maybe it is the statement that there are 'groups' of scientists in direct conflict with each other on this. The reality is that there is a consensus, but it is a critical one which takes uncertainty into account. There are some proper scientists who disagree with the analysis of most others but these are very very rare. Most who adopt this position are not scientists and derive their positions as much from other sources, like political ones, and not from the science. It is because of that that we hear some really idiotic phrases like 'CO2 is plant food' as though this statement would undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
ReplyVote up (142)down (108)
Original comment
Anyeon else spot something smug here? Maybe it is the statement that there are 'groups' of scientists in direct conflict with each other on this. The reality is that there is a consensus, but it is a critical one which takes uncertainty into account. There are some proper scientists who disagree with the analysis of most others but these are very very rare. Most who adopt this position are not scientists and derive their positions as much from other sources, like political ones, and not from the science. It is because of that that we hear some really idiotic phrases like 'CO2 is plant food' as though this statement would undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Dafuq (2957 days ago)
Yeah but how does it matter? Its happening, we gotta do something about it. Viruses arent made by humans yet still we look for antidotes.
ReplyVote up (119)down (111)
Original comment
Yeah but how does it matter? Its happening, we gotta do something about it. Viruses arent made by humans yet still we look for antidotes.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Steve33 (2956 days ago)
Are you drunk? Or deaf? So it's not down to a hundred years of burning fossil fuels, it's just some volcanoes or sunspots, is it? Unbelievable smugness and complacency Kerry.
ReplyVote up (109)down (103)
Original comment
Are you drunk? Or deaf? So it's not down to a hundred years of burning fossil fuels, it's just some volcanoes or sunspots, is it? Unbelievable smugness and complacency Kerry.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Da fuq? (2957 days ago)
Let's just wait and see then. Like everyone else...
ReplyVote up (125)down (141)
Original comment
Let's just wait and see then. Like everyone else...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: So excited... (2952 days ago)
I can't wait to see what happens
ReplyVote up (106)down (150)
Original comment
I can't wait to see what happens
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (2956 days ago)
He could've skyped his presentation, but its better to take a free trip to europe and earn your speakers fee. Like proponents for over-population, just suggest "you first". $10 says he won't paint his house white.
ReplyVote up (152)down (122)
Original comment
He could've skyped his presentation, but its better to take a free trip to europe and earn your speakers fee. Like proponents for over-population, just suggest "you first". $10 says he won't paint his house white.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Equally warm and cold (2952 days ago)
Yes, everybody should have an equal change to fly at least once in his/her lifetime. And it should be done before its too late, so we all should start flying now, except those who have already flown like this guy.
ReplyVote up (112)down (110)
Original comment
Yes, everybody should have an equal change to fly at least once in his/her lifetime. And it should be done before its too late, so we all should start flying now, except those who have already flown like this guy.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
comeonyoureds comeonyoureds (2956 days ago)
1st, one must know that ones own vanishingly small amount of knowledge of this important issue, based as it may be on anecdotal evidence or even a lofty newspaper article, as anything other than noise in the signal. The clear signal in this noise, is from scientists who have not only read an article or two, but devoted their entire lives to understanding this issue. The signal is that it is happening and we can either drown in happy ignorance or do something about it.
ReplyVote up (149)down (130)
Original comment
1st, one must know that ones own vanishingly small amount of knowledge of this important issue, based as it may be on anecdotal evidence or even a lofty newspaper article, as anything other than noise in the signal. The clear signal in this noise, is from scientists who have not only read an article or two, but devoted their entire lives to understanding this issue. The signal is that it is happening and we can either drown in happy ignorance or do something about it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2954 days ago)
One must also ask oneself why one would take the word of one group of scientists over another and come to a conclusion....the world may or may not be,warming,cooling,changi ng but it's hardly been decided and what,how are you going to do anything about it when the cause has not even been determined?
ReplyVote up (118)down (100)
Original comment
One must also ask oneself why one would take the word of one group of scientists over another and come to a conclusion....the world may or may not be,warming,cooling,changi ng but it's hardly been decided and what,how are you going to do anything about it when the cause has not even been determined?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2953 days ago)
Kerry - what is so difficult to understand? Here's an analogy that might help. Imagine a seesaw with 2 equal heavy weights on each side. The seesaw is balanced and the bar is horizontal. Now add a tiny weight on one side and watch the seesaw tip. Climate is similar. For 10,000 years, the natural production and absorption of greenhouse gases was balanced (the 2 heavy weights on each side of the seesaw). In the last 100 years, burning fossil fuels has added a small amount of greenhouse gases without removing them - the tiny weight added to one side of the seesaw. Deforestation is also playing its part by removing some of the weight from the other side of the seesaw. So now the seesaw is tipping. It doesn't actually matter what caused it to tip, the consequences of temperature rises of a few degrees are so serious, we'd better get off our asses and get into the global cooling business right now.
ReplyVote up (119)down (103)
Original comment
Kerry - what is so difficult to understand? Here's an analogy that might help. Imagine a seesaw with 2 equal heavy weights on each side. The seesaw is balanced and the bar is horizontal. Now add a tiny weight on one side and watch the seesaw tip. Climate is similar. For 10,000 years, the natural production and absorption of greenhouse gases was balanced (the 2 heavy weights on each side of the seesaw). In the last 100 years, burning fossil fuels has added a small amount of greenhouse gases without removing them - the tiny weight added to one side of the seesaw. Deforestation is also playing its part by removing some of the weight from the other side of the seesaw. So now the seesaw is tipping. It doesn't actually matter what caused it to tip, the consequences of temperature rises of a few degrees are so serious, we'd better get off our asses and get into the global cooling business right now.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2951 days ago)
Walter,the difficulty comes from conflicting opinions of scientists,reports of fraud and falsifying evidence from the IPPC,data coming out that the earth has been hotter than now,it was 'Global warming' until we had record cold temps., now it's 'Global change' it seems to change to fit the bill.And that bill will be directed to you and I in the form of a world wide tax which they have been trying to push on us in one way or another.I'm sure you are aware of the reasoning that the sheep must be kept scared and unsure so as to be sheared more easily....
ReplyVote up (118)down (108)
Original comment
Walter,the difficulty comes from conflicting opinions of scientists,reports of fraud and falsifying evidence from the IPPC,data coming out that the earth has been hotter than now,it was 'Global warming' until we had record cold temps., now it's 'Global change' it seems to change to fit the bill.And that bill will be directed to you and I in the form of a world wide tax which they have been trying to push on us in one way or another.I'm sure you are aware of the reasoning that the sheep must be kept scared and unsure so as to be sheared more easily....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2950 days ago)
Have you seen 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? It was a very convincing documentary made in 2007 that claimed global warming was a hoax. Shortly after it aired, it was well discredited. Here is a link to an interview with the director LINK - About falsification of evidence, this is a good set of videos talking about the leaked emails from a UK university in 2009. Do watch the second video LINK - About which scientists to believe, watch this LINK - I don't doubt that climate change is being used as an excuse to tax the hell out of us, but that has nothing to do with whether the world is warming, or whether warming is caused by human activity. It's irrelevant - human beings do what human beings do - screw you for profit whenever they can, and climate change is a great opportunity for that whether real or not. If the weird weather the world is experiencing right now is a phase, then we should expect it to become less extreme at some point in the future. Question is, how long are you going to wait for calmer 'normal' weather again, before you change your mind?
ReplyVote up (123)down (134)
Original comment
Have you seen 'The Great Global Warming Swindle'? It was a very convincing documentary made in 2007 that claimed global warming was a hoax. Shortly after it aired, it was well discredited. Here is a link to an interview with the director LINK - About falsification of evidence, this is a good set of videos talking about the leaked emails from a UK university in 2009. Do watch the second video LINK - About which scientists to believe, watch this LINK - I don't doubt that climate change is being used as an excuse to tax the hell out of us, but that has nothing to do with whether the world is warming, or whether warming is caused by human activity. It's irrelevant - human beings do what human beings do - screw you for profit whenever they can, and climate change is a great opportunity for that whether real or not. If the weird weather the world is experiencing right now is a phase, then we should expect it to become less extreme at some point in the future. Question is, how long are you going to wait for calmer 'normal' weather again, before you change your mind?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2945 days ago)
Will look at your links latter Walter,just to say we are on a similar wave link I think.Any scientist will tell you "The science is almost never settled" but this is precisely what the most vocal supporters are claiming.The question is whether or not human activity is to blame or if it's just a phase and we have no influence.The problem is the measures we would have to take to cure this 'Problem' would knock us back to the stone age to make any perceivable difference,is it worth it on something that we are not really sure is even happening?
ReplyVote up (126)down (134)
Original comment
Will look at your links latter Walter,just to say we are on a similar wave link I think.Any scientist will tell you "The science is almost never settled" but this is precisely what the most vocal supporters are claiming.The question is whether or not human activity is to blame or if it's just a phase and we have no influence.The problem is the measures we would have to take to cure this 'Problem' would knock us back to the stone age to make any perceivable difference,is it worth it on something that we are not really sure is even happening?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2944 days ago)
Sorry Kerry, we're not on a similar wavelength - I believe the scientific consensus. But I think you're wrong about the cure throwing us back into the Stone Age. It doesn't have to. It can propel us into the future. Energy from the sun is the energy of the future. Burning dead plants is history. Those nations and corporations that embrace clean energy on an industrial scale will be the powerhouses of the future.
ReplyVote up (130)down (126)
Original comment
Sorry Kerry, we're not on a similar wavelength - I believe the scientific consensus. But I think you're wrong about the cure throwing us back into the Stone Age. It doesn't have to. It can propel us into the future. Energy from the sun is the energy of the future. Burning dead plants is history. Those nations and corporations that embrace clean energy on an industrial scale will be the powerhouses of the future.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2944 days ago)
No need to apologize ;-) actually I was thinking about your point that humans will do what humans will do but seem to dismiss the profit motive from the warming crowd.I doubt much will be done and if it is it will be another big boon doogle where govt. backs the big players,they get rich,govt. gets paid off,the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill for a failed experient....think Solendra,Volt etc. As for your links I'm afraid I didn't find them very persuasive,not much evidence provided to refute anything really,a few scientists trotted out to refute if CO2 can really create global warming because of it's miniscule component of the atmosphere and one scientist says the amount doesn't matter,a small amount of Cyanide can kill you! Not exactly scientific method! As for the last 10 years of climate data I believe he was correct in that many of those data stations were cherry picked,many left out,many compromised by urban sprawl etc....
ReplyVote up (123)down (114)
Original comment
No need to apologize ;-) actually I was thinking about your point that humans will do what humans will do but seem to dismiss the profit motive from the warming crowd.I doubt much will be done and if it is it will be another big boon doogle where govt. backs the big players,they get rich,govt. gets paid off,the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill for a failed experient....think Solendra,Volt etc. As for your links I'm afraid I didn't find them very persuasive,not much evidence provided to refute anything really,a few scientists trotted out to refute if CO2 can really create global warming because of it's miniscule component of the atmosphere and one scientist says the amount doesn't matter,a small amount of Cyanide can kill you! Not exactly scientific method! As for the last 10 years of climate data I believe he was correct in that many of those data stations were cherry picked,many left out,many compromised by urban sprawl etc....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2943 days ago)
Hi Kerry, I don't think you get what I'm saying. Do you agree with this? "There are many human beings in positions of power, of ALL opinions, who will screw anyone for a profit, if the opportunity arises." If you agree with that, then surely it means that everything about conspiracy, over-taxing, corruption etc. is irrelevant to whether or not global warming is real, or a serious threat to life on Earth as we know it. The scientific consensus says it is, and that the warming is man-made. Unless you're an expert in climatology, the scientific consensus is the only opinion to trust, because all other opinions (politicians; energy industry; celebrities, film directors, my mate in the pub etc.) are far less reliable. What gives me a tiny bit of comfort is, that if we are capable of warming the planet, then we should be capable of cooling it.
ReplyVote up (102)down (113)
Original comment
Hi Kerry, I don't think you get what I'm saying. Do you agree with this? "There are many human beings in positions of power, of ALL opinions, who will screw anyone for a profit, if the opportunity arises." If you agree with that, then surely it means that everything about conspiracy, over-taxing, corruption etc. is irrelevant to whether or not global warming is real, or a serious threat to life on Earth as we know it. The scientific consensus says it is, and that the warming is man-made. Unless you're an expert in climatology, the scientific consensus is the only opinion to trust, because all other opinions (politicians; energy industry; celebrities, film directors, my mate in the pub etc.) are far less reliable. What gives me a tiny bit of comfort is, that if we are capable of warming the planet, then we should be capable of cooling it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2943 days ago)
I agree with what you say Walter but why do you think those scientists you talk about are above that when we know that if you want funding for ANY research all you have to do is link it to AGW and they are throwing money at you and if you happen to find something contrary to the political spin then it's marginalized. It doesn't bother you that that those scientists in the IPCC destroyed the data,refused peer review etc. are these the actions of people you can trust? Just like WMDs(Did you believe in that too? I did until common sense and too many questions popped up)The problem is politics are involved with BIG money as I stated above,who knows what the truth is anymore? My guess is we're being taken for a ride.Carbon credits are a joke,wallstreet trades them and make money of course! My brother and friend get credits for the trees on there properties,industries by those credits so they can pump out more pollution...where is the sense in that!? As for your suggestion of trying to cool the planet you are starting to scare me Walter.There is the famous story of why there weren't any fish in the streams in Yellow Stone park but plenty in a nearby forest,the answer was because they didn't have the Fish and wildlife Dept. in the nearby forest.Govt. will stuff it up,it's answer to everything is to throw money at it,our money,and make the problem worse.Look at education,the P.O., Amtrack,the economy.Which leads me to my last point which is you just can't afford to do what you are proposing.Most countries are broke!You can't tax the populace any more either directly or by inflation,all you'd do is transfer more wealth to the already wealthy... You remind me of a well worn phrase,and I don't mean to patronize you Walter,you seem like a smart bloke,but the road to hell is paved with good intentions comes to mind. Regards,
ReplyVote up (118)down (123)
Original comment
I agree with what you say Walter but why do you think those scientists you talk about are above that when we know that if you want funding for ANY research all you have to do is link it to AGW and they are throwing money at you and if you happen to find something contrary to the political spin then it's marginalized. It doesn't bother you that that those scientists in the IPCC destroyed the data,refused peer review etc. are these the actions of people you can trust? Just like WMDs(Did you believe in that too? I did until common sense and too many questions popped up)The problem is politics are involved with BIG money as I stated above,who knows what the truth is anymore? My guess is we're being taken for a ride.Carbon credits are a joke,wallstreet trades them and make money of course! My brother and friend get credits for the trees on there properties,industries by those credits so they can pump out more pollution...where is the sense in that!? As for your suggestion of trying to cool the planet you are starting to scare me Walter.There is the famous story of why there weren't any fish in the streams in Yellow Stone park but plenty in a nearby forest,the answer was because they didn't have the Fish and wildlife Dept. in the nearby forest.Govt. will stuff it up,it's answer to everything is to throw money at it,our money,and make the problem worse.Look at education,the P.O., Amtrack,the economy.Which leads me to my last point which is you just can't afford to do what you are proposing.Most countries are broke!You can't tax the populace any more either directly or by inflation,all you'd do is transfer more wealth to the already wealthy... You remind me of a well worn phrase,and I don't mean to patronize you Walter,you seem like a smart bloke,but the road to hell is paved with good intentions comes to mind. Regards,
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2942 days ago)
There are several reasons why I trust the scientific community more than any other - the strongest is that it works. The reason why the iPhone exists is because we understand the science well enough to create it. That level of knowledge has been acquired by scientists following the scientific method. The method may not be perfect, but it's the best system we have for deciding what is 'true'. And the proof is that the iPhone works. Incidentally, the weird, more extreme weather we are experiencing globally, is what climate models predicted. Another thing has always struck me. If you look at a photo of the Earth taken from space, you'll notice how incredibly thin the atmosphere is (Earth's radius = 4,000 miles, atmosphere = 6 miles). It's hard to imagine how the greenhouse gases we are relentlessly pumping out, would not affect the climate.
ReplyVote up (127)down (133)
Original comment
There are several reasons why I trust the scientific community more than any other - the strongest is that it works. The reason why the iPhone exists is because we understand the science well enough to create it. That level of knowledge has been acquired by scientists following the scientific method. The method may not be perfect, but it's the best system we have for deciding what is 'true'. And the proof is that the iPhone works. Incidentally, the weird, more extreme weather we are experiencing globally, is what climate models predicted. Another thing has always struck me. If you look at a photo of the Earth taken from space, you'll notice how incredibly thin the atmosphere is (Earth's radius = 4,000 miles, atmosphere = 6 miles). It's hard to imagine how the greenhouse gases we are relentlessly pumping out, would not affect the climate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2942 days ago)
As for cooling the planet, that depends on whether you believe the video above. If you believe what David Roberts is saying, which is pretty much the scientific consensus, then we have no choice. I don't think it's a matter of throwing more money at the problem, I think its about rethinking how we spend the money we have. A few less bonuses, and big business paying its taxes would be a good start. I figure that if we can warm the planet, then we should be able to cool it. After all, the ozone layer is coming back. One thing I do agree with you 100%, is that the problem is politics. I thought David Roberts put it well - we're stuck between the impossible (politics) and the unthinkable (planet too hot to live on).
ReplyVote up (113)down (125)
Original comment
As for cooling the planet, that depends on whether you believe the video above. If you believe what David Roberts is saying, which is pretty much the scientific consensus, then we have no choice. I don't think it's a matter of throwing more money at the problem, I think its about rethinking how we spend the money we have. A few less bonuses, and big business paying its taxes would be a good start. I figure that if we can warm the planet, then we should be able to cool it. After all, the ozone layer is coming back. One thing I do agree with you 100%, is that the problem is politics. I thought David Roberts put it well - we're stuck between the impossible (politics) and the unthinkable (planet too hot to live on).
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
glortman glortman (2940 days ago)
Kerry, I would like to address your point about scientific funding very directly. Ultimately, scientists receive funding from private institutions or governments. In the case of the private institution, most back science that supports their agenda. Businesses (rather than not-for-profits) therefore control most of the funding in the private sector, since there are more of them, and they control more wealth and capital than not-for profits. The goal of governments, so far as I can tell, is to keep the state solvent no matter the cost. If the cost is people in exchange for wealth, a government will allow that (Democratic Republic of Congo, diamonds) if the cost is the environment, the government will allow that (Canada, tar sands). So for governments too, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Governments support businesses first. It is not in any way in the interest for any business to say "Consume less!" or "Stop raping the planet", because at this moment in time the costs of restraint outweigh the benefits to shareholders. Our funding is granted based on the scientific merit of our research, not on the expected results. There is NO benefit whatsoever to any government to fund research that says "We are f*cked! Stop using oil!" In fact, Canadian climate scientists are finding results that are against the current Harper administration's environment raping agenda, and against the biggest, wealthiest businesses in Canada. According to your logic, how will that help them get funding? Your argument Kerry, makes no sense at all.
ReplyVote up (115)down (130)
Original comment
Kerry, I would like to address your point about scientific funding very directly. Ultimately, scientists receive funding from private institutions or governments. In the case of the private institution, most back science that supports their agenda. Businesses (rather than not-for-profits) therefore control most of the funding in the private sector, since there are more of them, and they control more wealth and capital than not-for profits. The goal of governments, so far as I can tell, is to keep the state solvent no matter the cost. If the cost is people in exchange for wealth, a government will allow that (Democratic Republic of Congo, diamonds) if the cost is the environment, the government will allow that (Canada, tar sands). So for governments too, the bottom line is, well, the bottom line. Governments support businesses first. It is not in any way in the interest for any business to say "Consume less!" or "Stop raping the planet", because at this moment in time the costs of restraint outweigh the benefits to shareholders. Our funding is granted based on the scientific merit of our research, not on the expected results. There is NO benefit whatsoever to any government to fund research that says "We are f*cked! Stop using oil!" In fact, Canadian climate scientists are finding results that are against the current Harper administration's environment raping agenda, and against the biggest, wealthiest businesses in Canada. According to your logic, how will that help them get funding? Your argument Kerry, makes no sense at all.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2941 days ago)
That's the problem Walter,it's not just about the science,you completely ignored my point about how the scientific method has been corrupted by politics and money.The destruction of data,peer review etc. Remember the story of the Himalayas melting? Polar bears drowning....As for the models they did not predict record cold temps. for two years running,now we have a hot summer,THIS year but freezing cold in the Southern hemisphere.Global warming changes to Global change...well that's kind of a catch-all don't you think?The models are full of problems and bias depending on which scientist you ask and are in no way infallible.
ReplyVote up (104)down (118)
Original comment
That's the problem Walter,it's not just about the science,you completely ignored my point about how the scientific method has been corrupted by politics and money.The destruction of data,peer review etc. Remember the story of the Himalayas melting? Polar bears drowning....As for the models they did not predict record cold temps. for two years running,now we have a hot summer,THIS year but freezing cold in the Southern hemisphere.Global warming changes to Global change...well that's kind of a catch-all don't you think?The models are full of problems and bias depending on which scientist you ask and are in no way infallible.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2941 days ago)
I did not ignore your point about the scientific method being "corrupted by politics etc." I said the scientific method is the best (not perfect) method we have for deciding what is true or not - similar in sentiment to Winston Churchill's quote "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". The question is really about which body of expertise the layperson should trust. I think you (and probably most people) will trust instinct first, and then cherry pick the evidence to fit. The scientific method aims to prevent that, and on the whole does a pretty good job. It is the only discipline that I can think of that actually cares about the 'truth' being accurate.
ReplyVote up (112)down (95)
Original comment
I did not ignore your point about the scientific method being "corrupted by politics etc." I said the scientific method is the best (not perfect) method we have for deciding what is true or not - similar in sentiment to Winston Churchill's quote "Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried". The question is really about which body of expertise the layperson should trust. I think you (and probably most people) will trust instinct first, and then cherry pick the evidence to fit. The scientific method aims to prevent that, and on the whole does a pretty good job. It is the only discipline that I can think of that actually cares about the 'truth' being accurate.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2941 days ago)
As for 'destruction of data', Himalayagate etc. - these are examples of imperfections in human nature, exactly what the scientific method aims to root out. Because there are rogue scientists (eg. research teams funded by the oil industry), it does not mean the scientific consensus is wrong. We can argue till the cows come home about each individual incident, but that is a dangerous distraction from the big picture. David Roberts made a similar point using the example of 'Hitler's armies being 100 miles away' (15:41). I will change my mind if the scientific consensus changes. I guess you'll change your mind at some point in the future if the weather does not 'normalise'.
ReplyVote up (116)down (113)
Original comment
As for 'destruction of data', Himalayagate etc. - these are examples of imperfections in human nature, exactly what the scientific method aims to root out. Because there are rogue scientists (eg. research teams funded by the oil industry), it does not mean the scientific consensus is wrong. We can argue till the cows come home about each individual incident, but that is a dangerous distraction from the big picture. David Roberts made a similar point using the example of 'Hitler's armies being 100 miles away' (15:41). I will change my mind if the scientific consensus changes. I guess you'll change your mind at some point in the future if the weather does not 'normalise'.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2941 days ago)
True,however I see imperfections of human nature in scientists with a political and monetary agenda and I don't see a consensus on the cause of global warming,if there is such a thing and the 'Big picture' is very unclear,to me and many others.Thats not to say it isn't happening,just that I don't think the evidence is in yet.As you say we could argue forever on this point and only time will tell in which time I'll change my mind and hopefully you will too.BTW see the latest satellite images of Greenland's ice sheet melt? Appears to uphold your view but "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," Hmmm makes you wonder doesn't it? If it happened 150 years ago.....
ReplyVote up (121)down (120)
Original comment
True,however I see imperfections of human nature in scientists with a political and monetary agenda and I don't see a consensus on the cause of global warming,if there is such a thing and the 'Big picture' is very unclear,to me and many others.Thats not to say it isn't happening,just that I don't think the evidence is in yet.As you say we could argue forever on this point and only time will tell in which time I'll change my mind and hopefully you will too.BTW see the latest satellite images of Greenland's ice sheet melt? Appears to uphold your view but "Ice cores from Summit show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time," Hmmm makes you wonder doesn't it? If it happened 150 years ago.....
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2941 days ago)
You don't see a consensus because you don't want to. This article on Wikipedia explains what the scientific consensus on climate change is: LINK Yes, I did see the Greenland ice sheet pictures. The jury is still out on that because, as you say, it fits perfectly with a known pattern. Scientists are not fooled that easily.
ReplyVote up (98)down (115)
Original comment
You don't see a consensus because you don't want to. This article on Wikipedia explains what the scientific consensus on climate change is: LINK Yes, I did see the Greenland ice sheet pictures. The jury is still out on that because, as you say, it fits perfectly with a known pattern. Scientists are not fooled that easily.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2940 days ago)
From the link you sent....http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/List_of_scien tists_opposing_the_mainst ream_scientific_assessmen t_of_global_warming Doesn't seem like the science is settled at all does it?
ReplyVote up (168)down (118)
Original comment
From the link you sent....http://en.wikiped ia.org/wiki/List_of_scien tists_opposing_the_mainst ream_scientific_assessmen t_of_global_warming Doesn't seem like the science is settled at all does it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2940 days ago)
Latest comment: For some reason, your link to "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" hasn't written correctly, so here is the LINK again. On the same page, there is a graphic showing the percentage of scientists who agree/disagree with the mainstream assessment - LINK Let me summarise - three studies between 2008 and 2011 show that between 88% and 98% of climatologists agree that global warming is largely caused by humans, and if you take the most published climatologists (a measure of expertise level), both the 2009 and 2011 studies put the figure at 98%. Are those figures convincing enough for you?
ReplyVote up (114)down (114)
Original comment
Latest comment: For some reason, your link to "scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming" hasn't written correctly, so here is the LINK again. On the same page, there is a graphic showing the percentage of scientists who agree/disagree with the mainstream assessment - LINK Let me summarise - three studies between 2008 and 2011 show that between 88% and 98% of climatologists agree that global warming is largely caused by humans, and if you take the most published climatologists (a measure of expertise level), both the 2009 and 2011 studies put the figure at 98%. Are those figures convincing enough for you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: monkster (2956 days ago)
So humans may or may not be around by 2300? What do I care, I won't be around by 2100. When my life ends, essentially all other life ends.
ReplyVote up (121)down (137)
Original comment
So humans may or may not be around by 2300? What do I care, I won't be around by 2100. When my life ends, essentially all other life ends.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: BigBix (2954 days ago)
@monkster it will be possible to upload your brain to the internet, essentially granting you immortality. The quicker we tackle a problem such as global warming, the more money and resources we can put towards living on the internet forever.
ReplyVote up (150)down (130)
Original comment
@monkster it will be possible to upload your brain to the internet, essentially granting you immortality. The quicker we tackle a problem such as global warming, the more money and resources we can put towards living on the internet forever.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: might be partly true but... (2953 days ago)
being able to "upload your brain" or "download your consciousness" seems a reductionistic understanding, your mind and consciousness cannot be reduced only to electroneural impulses zapping through synapses , although that is ceertainly part of the process . the full human psychosomatic (etc.) experience cannot be reduced only to the linear functions of computer programming and mechanistic data bursts. consciousness , unconsciousness, deep stuff ...
ReplyVote up (131)down (118)
Original comment
being able to "upload your brain" or "download your consciousness" seems a reductionistic understanding, your mind and consciousness cannot be reduced only to electroneural impulses zapping through synapses , although that is ceertainly part of the process . the full human psychosomatic (etc.) experience cannot be reduced only to the linear functions of computer programming and mechanistic data bursts. consciousness , unconsciousness, deep stuff ...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Stan23 (2953 days ago)
Write a letter to your unborn grandchildren or great grandchildren to be opened and read in 2100 and explain to them what you believe about "Climate Change" in 2012 and why. Our as yet unborn descendants will be the judges - Did we get it right? Did we do what had to be done? Was "climate change" a non-event?Did we screw up?
ReplyVote up (135)down (118)
Original comment
Write a letter to your unborn grandchildren or great grandchildren to be opened and read in 2100 and explain to them what you believe about "Climate Change" in 2012 and why. Our as yet unborn descendants will be the judges - Did we get it right? Did we do what had to be done? Was "climate change" a non-event?Did we screw up?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Where can I sign up! (2952 days ago)
Oh, Another cult talking about hell and resurrection?
ReplyVote up (125)down (117)
Original comment
Oh, Another cult talking about hell and resurrection?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Must (2952 days ago)
follow him
ReplyVote up (114)down (104)
Original comment
follow him
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Kerry (2956 days ago)
Nether.Is it down to a hundred years of burning fossil fuels? FYI the science is NOT settled(That\'s where the unbelievable smugness and complacency is by the way) and it\'s a big question.Of course throwing other peoples money at the problem is going to go a long way isn\'t it? Where do you think that money really ends up? It\'s just another excuse to tax everyone more...
ReplyVote up (120)down (116)
Original comment
Nether.Is it down to a hundred years of burning fossil fuels? FYI the science is NOT settled(That\'s where the unbelievable smugness and complacency is by the way) and it\'s a big question.Of course throwing other peoples money at the problem is going to go a long way isn\'t it? Where do you think that money really ends up? It\'s just another excuse to tax everyone more...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2956 days ago)
Human produced greenhouse gases make up a very small % of the overall greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The important thing to understand is that natural greenhouse gases (from living things, oceans, volcanoes etc) are pretty much in balance - i.e. what is produced is absorbed. That is why for the last 10,000 years, we have had a relatively stable climate. In the last hundred or so years, human activity has added a relatively small amount of greenhouse gases, but these greenhouse gases are NOT removed and so are changing the balance. Unfortunately for us, the atmosphere is quite sensitive to changes in its chemical make up. The science is as settled as evolution is a fact, or that the Earth is round.
ReplyVote up (111)down (79)
Original comment
Human produced greenhouse gases make up a very small % of the overall greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The important thing to understand is that natural greenhouse gases (from living things, oceans, volcanoes etc) are pretty much in balance - i.e. what is produced is absorbed. That is why for the last 10,000 years, we have had a relatively stable climate. In the last hundred or so years, human activity has added a relatively small amount of greenhouse gases, but these greenhouse gases are NOT removed and so are changing the balance. Unfortunately for us, the atmosphere is quite sensitive to changes in its chemical make up. The science is as settled as evolution is a fact, or that the Earth is round.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2955 days ago)
Even if we cut emissions to zero instantly, the imbalance is still there. We need to start thinking about global cooling technologies.
ReplyVote up (91)down (146)
Original comment
Even if we cut emissions to zero instantly, the imbalance is still there. We need to start thinking about global cooling technologies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2955 days ago)
Computer models can be tested by running them backwards and comparing their predictions with recorded data. Latest models do very well.
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
Computer models can be tested by running them backwards and comparing their predictions with recorded data. Latest models do very well.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Oceans too (2952 days ago)
We know soooo little about climate on earth right now that it is false to speak those as a proven facts. The things you think as facts are not very stable, they are changing all the time.
ReplyVote up (90)down (101)
Original comment
We know soooo little about climate on earth right now that it is false to speak those as a proven facts. The things you think as facts are not very stable, they are changing all the time.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2950 days ago)
I think we actually know quite a lot about the way climate works, especially when talking about trends over the long term. We understand how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat keeping us warm from neighbouring freezing space. We know that if you increase greenhouse gases, the temperature on earth will rise. We know that more energy in the atmosphere will result in more extreme weather. What we don't know is whether or not snow will fall over London during the Olympics. BTW, I'm no expert on climate science - I just have a keen interest and I'm expressing my opinion.
ReplyVote up (112)down (93)
Original comment
I think we actually know quite a lot about the way climate works, especially when talking about trends over the long term. We understand how greenhouse gases in the atmosphere trap heat keeping us warm from neighbouring freezing space. We know that if you increase greenhouse gases, the temperature on earth will rise. We know that more energy in the atmosphere will result in more extreme weather. What we don't know is whether or not snow will fall over London during the Olympics. BTW, I'm no expert on climate science - I just have a keen interest and I'm expressing my opinion.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (2957 days ago)
Global cooling technologies will be big business
ReplyVote up (110)down (125)
Original comment
Global cooling technologies will be big business
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Money for us (2952 days ago)
Where can I bet on this? I want to make money too...
ReplyVote up (101)down (247)
Original comment
Where can I bet on this? I want to make money too...
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Twila Moon | Arctic melt and human choices
Twila Moon | Arctic melt and human choices
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
Alan Partridge on the benefits of global warming
First snowfall ever in Philippines post ice age
First snowfall ever in Philippines post ice age
NASA projects megadroughts for American West
NASA projects megadroughts for American West
Climate change in blunt, plain terms
Climate change in blunt, plain terms