Too late? Why scientists say we should expect the worst

[JohnB]

So are the previous few posters saying that there's no problem with the climate, and we can burn every bit of fossil fuel on the planet without harm? And that the only thing we need to worry about is whether, and for how long, that fuel will last?

[snow hope]

Hold on a minute. We don't need to drop to the level of being disrespectful to one another on here. We are in a small minority of people who have been able to seeing the impending crisis of Peak Oil and the ramifications of what it will bring to civilisation. So in my books that says that none of us are sleep-walkers and we all are able to think for ourselves and draw our own conclusions. Agreed?!

Okay, so we need to respect that some people have concluded that AGW exists and is a definate problem for civilisation in the near future. We also need to respect that some people are sceptical of the "concensus" stance that AGW is really the problem we are led to believe.

I am fairly sceptical of the AGW "consensus" and there are quite a few others who post on PowerSwitch who are sceptical. There are probably more who agree with the "consensus", but we need to accept that is a very complex subject and that is why independent people come to different conclusions..... I am also involved in a Weather/Climate Forum with more than 5000 members where this problem arises. We deal with it by ensuring both viewpoints are respected and through careful, but sensitive moderating.

Once we can respect each others opinions then we can discuss the subject without needing to become offensive.

Agreed??

[Andy Hunt]

So are the previous few posters saying that there's no problem with the climate, and we can burn every bit of fossil fuel on the planet without harm? And that the only thing we need to worry about is whether, and for how long, that fuel will last?

Well life in the oceans is stuffed if that happens, at any rate. We'll be swimming in carbonic acid and not much else.

[DominicJ]

So are the previous few posters saying that there's no problem with the climate, and we can burn every bit of fossil fuel on the planet without harm? And that the only thing we need to worry about is whether, and for how long, that fuel will last?

Seems reasonable on a forum about peak oil.

We deal with it by ensuring both viewpoints are respected and through careful, but sensitive moderating.

Sounds great in theory, gets flying spaghetti monstered pretty quickly though.
All opinions are equal, facts and opinions are not.

[Andy Hunt]

All opinions are equal, facts and opinions are not.

In your opinion.

[Bandidoz]

note the non-zeroed vertical axis

The vertical axis should be large enough to demonstrate the normal range of variance - so a 160PPM base would be more "honest" - not zero.

[Cabrone]

You have invested so much in this that I think you would perceive it as loss of social status to see the whole theory about AGW being wrong. If you could assume for a millisecond that it IS wrong, how would you handle the situation? I think you would react like any human being, and feel ashamed, embarrassed and stupid.

Geez, another MacG ad hominen attack based on nothing whatsoever.

I find it amusing that all the major scientific bodies and governments agree on AGW but you don't. Wow that must make you some kind of genius right?

If you think you are so correct then may I suggest that you email Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall centre and ask him how he arrived at his conclusions?

Somehow I doubt you will though because you can't handle reality.

It does not matter. Collective delusions are generally not swayed by facts. Read "The Crowd" by Gustave LeBon for some insights.

So your whole argument is that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are 'deluded'.

You on the other hand know 'the truth'.

Priceless.

[DominicJ]

So your whole argument is that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are 'deluded'.

Nope, the vast majority of the people pushing climate change are not scientists, they are people who make a living by advising on climate change.

They're on the same level as sexism/racism/homophobia awareness consultants, so slightly above human rights lawyers and slightly below alien invasion insurance salesmen.

[J. R. Ewing]

I blame Geldof, Bono and Co. who campaigned to end poverty in the devoloping World. By doing so so they've probably brought on our destruction.

[happychicken]

So your whole argument is that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are 'deluded'.

Nope, the vast majority of the people pushing climate change are not scientists, they are people who make a living by advising on climate change.

Define scientist.

Personally I think most of the IPCC are scientists.


Anyway, whether you are a global warming believer or not, fuel depletion and global warming are hardly mutually exclusive; they have been caused by the same idiocy i.e. extracting fossil fuels out of the earth, where they had been happily sitting for millions of years, and burning them.

The fact that humans have done this has allowed the human population to expand to unsustainable levels. Now humans are running out of water, food, fuel and land. We only have one planet, with a limited amount of space and resources. The global economy is shrinking rapidly as the population is expanding rapidly.

The answers to tackling fuel depletion and global warming are the same - it's pretty simple really - we need to reduce our use of fossil fuels right NOW.

[Ben]

Okay, so we need to respect that some people have concluded that AGW exists and is a definate problem for civilisation in the near future. We also need to respect that some people are sceptical of the "concensus" stance that AGW is really the problem we are led to believe.

This site tends to attract free-thinkers so I imagine there are a variety of views on here. I feel a Powerswitch poll coming on!

If you expect, as I do, all accessible fossil fuel to be (at some point) extracted and burnt, whether I, or anyone else, believe global warming is man-made probably makes little practical difference. When people are desperate enough any "protocols" will go straight out the window.

[MacG]

Geez, another MacG ad hominen attack based on nothing whatsoever.

I find it amusing that all the major scientific bodies and governments agree on AGW but you don't. Wow that must make you some kind of genius right?

If you think you are so correct then may I suggest that you email Kevin Anderson at the Tyndall centre and ask him how he arrived at his conclusions?

Somehow I doubt you will though because you can't handle reality.

It does not matter. Collective delusions are generally not swayed by facts. Read "The Crowd" by Gustave LeBon for some insights.

So your whole argument is that the vast majority of the worlds scientists are 'deluded'.

You on the other hand know 'the truth'.

Priceless.

I'm a scientist and I work among other scientists. What do you base your assessment of "majority" on? Watching TV? Novels? Movies? With all due respect, but you are the deluded one here.

[clv101]

This site tends to attract free-thinkers...

The subject of peak oil strongly attracts the 'lone ranger' mindset. Forging a controversial path and turning away from consensus wherever it is seen. The kind of person that accepts peak oil when all around them maintain it's crazy is often also the kind of person to deny climate change when the mainstream agree it.

[JohnB]

So as an accountant who's dabbled in a bit of computer programming, so has a fairly logical mind, but whose scientific qualifications extend to scraping through a Physics A Level, can I ask a few questions?

1) Is climate change that has the potential to cause disruption to the human way of life happening?

2) If the answer to 1) is yes, is it (or a significant part of it) man made?

3) If the answer to 1) is yes, can we do anything about it, regardless of who caused it?

4) Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is happening?

5) If the answer to 4) is yes, do the majority believe that a significant part of it is man made?

[clv101]

So as an accountant who's dabbled in a bit of computer programming, so has a fairly logical mind, but whose scientific qualifications extend to scraping through a Physics A Level, can I ask a few questions?

1) Is climate change that has the potential to cause disruption to the human way of life happening?

Yes. The IPPC state the warming is unequivocal. The way you worded your question makes it easy to say yes, there is a change therefore potential for disruption exists.

2) If the answer to 1) is yes, is it (or a significant part of it) man made?

The IPCC conclude that it is very likely (95%) that most of the temperature rise is attributable to anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations. The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%. Remember the IPCC is an intergovernmental organisation and represents the agreed consensus of government employed scientists - government's generally (including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait) do not stand to benefit from climate change, most if not all would be better off without it.

3) If the answer to 1) is yes, can we do anything about it, regardless of who caused it?

A degree of projected future impacts are the results of past actions so we can't do anything to mitigate but we can adapt. Future emissions will have impacts in the future so we can do something about future emissions. It is also possible to pro-actively reduce concentrations by drawing CO2 from the atmosphere (bio-char, iron fertilisation of Southern Ocean etc...)

4) Is it true that the vast majority of climate scientists believe climate change is happening?

Yes. That the climate is changing is unequivocal.

5) If the answer to 4) is yes, do the majority believe that a significant part of it is man made?

The IPPC carry out a comprehensive review. Where there is uncertainty in the literature, that uncertainty is reflected in the assessment reports. That the man made confidence is 95% rather than unequivocal reflects the degree of agreement.