World Affairs Board - View Single Post

RadioM · 03-23-2007, 02:04 AM

The source is irrelevant, there will always be scientists who can produce work that disproves any current theory. When I was at uni I saw a survey that showed 10% of US scientists were creationists.

The great strength of science is that there is ALWAYS debate. A few posts back someone mentioned something along the lines of "why isn't anyone questioning the Gore film" well they are and have been since global warming theory was first publicised.

It is important in the global warming debate to realise that as far as scientists are concerned, they don't give a crap about what the general public think (except when it comes to getting funding of course). Only the general population get worked up about populist films either pro or anti global warming.

My views on climate change:
Global warming is indeed happening to claim that it is a 'swindle' is IMO false. It is also appears to be happening at a faster rate than previous "warming periods" have occured. That human industrial outputs (HIO) are contributing to warming (to some degree) is also proven.

However this does not initself suggest that HIO has artificially caused a "warming period," nor does it suggest that the temperature increase has been solely caused by HIO. Perhaps the HIO component is negligable.

At present all we have are questions. Science is better at analysis than prediction and thus most of the pro-climate change scientists are suggesting emission cuts as a POTENTIAL preventative measure. This I think is often lost on the anti-climate change lobby and the Gore types.

A potential trend has been discovered as has a potential cause. Do we ignore it and wait and see or do we take the risk (in some economies a huge risk) and make some fundamental changes to our industrial emissions?

Regardless it would be better for all concerned that we cut industrial emissions in the developed world (where the technology exists, just not the will) and in our personal lives cut back on our resource consumption (no Mr Gore carbon offsets DO NOT MAKE IT BETTER). Not just for the potential climate change effects but for general effciency and to lower the number of people that die each year as a result of particulate matter in the air.

But all in all 'global warming' is not an environmental problem. Nature is fantastically adaptible, some species will die out others will rise in their place. This cycle has been occuring for the past 2 billion years (possibly 3.5), with no problems.

Rather 'global warming, climate change, etc' is a human problem. The humans living within 0-10 meters of sea level, humans without ready access to food and all the other humans that will have to deal with those affected.

03-23-2007, 02:04 AM	#13 (permalink)
RadioM Patron Join Date: 02-18-07 Location: Tasmania Posts: 201 Country:	The source is irrelevant, there will always be scientists who can produce work that disproves any current theory. When I was at uni I saw a survey that showed 10% of US scientists were creationists. The great strength of science is that there is ALWAYS debate. A few posts back someone mentioned something along the lines of "why isn't anyone questioning the Gore film" well they are and have been since global warming theory was first publicised. It is important in the global warming debate to realise that as far as scientists are concerned, they don't give a crap about what the general public think (except when it comes to getting funding of course). Only the general population get worked up about populist films either pro or anti global warming. My views on climate change: Global warming is indeed happening to claim that it is a 'swindle' is IMO false. It is also appears to be happening at a faster rate than previous "warming periods" have occured. That human industrial outputs (HIO) are contributing to warming (to some degree) is also proven. However this does not initself suggest that HIO has artificially caused a "warming period," nor does it suggest that the temperature increase has been solely caused by HIO. Perhaps the HIO component is negligable. At present all we have are questions. Science is better at analysis than prediction and thus most of the pro-climate change scientists are suggesting emission cuts as a POTENTIAL preventative measure. This I think is often lost on the anti-climate change lobby and the Gore types. A potential trend has been discovered as has a potential cause. Do we ignore it and wait and see or do we take the risk (in some economies a huge risk) and make some fundamental changes to our industrial emissions? Regardless it would be better for all concerned that we cut industrial emissions in the developed world (where the technology exists, just not the will) and in our personal lives cut back on our resource consumption (no Mr Gore carbon offsets DO NOT MAKE IT BETTER). Not just for the potential climate change effects but for general effciency and to lower the number of people that die each year as a result of particulate matter in the air. But all in all 'global warming' is not an environmental problem. Nature is fantastically adaptible, some species will die out others will rise in their place. This cycle has been occuring for the past 2 billion years (possibly 3.5), with no problems. Rather 'global warming, climate change, etc' is a human problem. The humans living within 0-10 meters of sea level, humans without ready access to food and all the other humans that will have to deal with those affected.