Global Warming denial an article of religious faith | BBC

[Anymouse]

A new study out indicates that the reason global temperature rise has flattened in the last ten or so years is due to one thing: China's coal use.

Like in the 1950's, when the USA and Europe increased exponentially coal use, China is doing the same. And in addition to the long-term problem of carbon dioxide, there are the short term sulphur particles (which are the principle ingredient of smog). Sulphur acts as a reflector of sunlight. In the 1960's in the Occident, when smog problems and acid rain started getting very bad, Western nations started requiring such things as stack scrubbers to remove sulphur.

By doing so, they removed the short-term sulphur, but the carbon dioxide remained, creating a spike in temperatures. This study purports to show that China's coal use doubled from 1980 to 2003, and again from 2003 to 2007, when the IPCC climate commission report came out. Since the IPCC report, China's coal consumption has risen another 30%. The report convincingly shows the addition of short-term sulphur compounds to the air from China's use of coal is what has caused the flattening of temperatures in the last few years.

Scientists who worked on the coal study, and others, point this was the last missing piece of the climate rise puzzle, why temperatures have flattened out over the last few years. They point out that climate change deniers such as Faux News are now only accepting it on faith. They believe in a myth. And we know just how well mythology and faith go over on a forum like this one.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14002264 BBC
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.fu...e90603626c Proceedings of the National Academy of Science Soot Climate Forcing Via Snow and Ice Albedos
James. Trying to keep you cool.

[Welsh cake]

"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

"Even before this paper there wasn't much scientific evidence for denying climate change, and now I don't see any credible scientific contradiction - if people don't believe it, it'll be because they choose not to believe it."

Robert Kaufmann displays an overwhelming level of ignorance here. If I believe when someone drops a pen it'll fall at 9.81 m/s2 is that an act of faith? Not an acceptance that a statement or proposition is true? One of the virtues of science is its repeatability - its not like science just stops working on occasions. No, I reject that statement; I don’t accept anything on faith, be it the existence of Australia or the sun rising in the morning.

And I'm a climate-change denier by their reckoning? Really? So if I'm unconvinced by all the god claims and don't believe in god, am I a god-denier?

IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted. BBC have been criticised since forever for their basis towards climate change and campaigning on the issue whenever the opportunity arises, so on this issue they are not a trustworthy source, they are seeking to proselytise and scaremonger; they’re not giving me the impartiality on the subject I require.

There is simply too much controversy and political agenda that surrounds the whole saga (see link below) I simply remain in disbelief until it is proven true. I can't even comment on whether human-induced climate change is happening or not, no more if some scientists published findings tomorrow that without humans the climate would go out of control. I am not certain beyond reasonable doubt it is happening therefore it would be intellectually dishonest of me and hypocritical to accept the findings without trying to apply scrutiny to them first.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...-bill.html

[The Grand Nudger]

Welsh, that animals have an affect upon their surroundings is hardly an issue that cannot be reproduced. The core of the ACC argument, is that the many and varied actions of all of us on a local scale add up to a global effect. The severity of this effect, and predictions as to where it will lead and the amount of time it will take to get there are definitely open to interpretation. It's not an all or nothing issue.

Some well documented examples of human induced climate change that just immediately spring to mind, would be Londons famous fog, the dust bowl here in the states, Big sugars draining of the glades and the subsequent change in flora, fauna, and yes, even rainfall in S FL. We have a very long history of altering our environment, sometimes to our benefit sometimes to our detriment. You don't have to remain in disbelief about these things, they actually happened. Similarly you don't have to subscribe to any particular modelers predictions of a climate-apocalypse to accept the proposition that all of the things we do in our local environments add up to a significant change in our global environment. The world is a very different place now than it was before we found out that we could better our lot by putting the whole thing under our heels. Some areas have been left completely devoid of life, others transformed from barren wastes to lush oasis. This kind of terrestrial tampering has had an effect on the climate. With these examples in mind, it would be difficult for one to accept that releasing things directly into the atmosphere on a global scale would have absolutely no effect, or that the earth has a limitless capacity to correct itself.

An interesting WIKI link that touches on some of the effects that altering an ecosystem had on the quality of life for those immediately surrounding it. As a side note, I'm completely with you regarding my level of confidence on modelers claims to effectively foretell the future, I'm just hoping there isn't a Cassandra among them, is all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everglades

I grew up in and around the glades, the effects of human tampering in this regard were everywhere around us, still there were those who argued that it was just a natural cycle of this or that. Turns out, it wasn't. All we did here btw was drain a swamp so we could grow more sugar, at least that's all we thought we did. It's been vastly more expensive to reverse the effect than it was to move the water in the first place. This is the kind of thing that some people fear may occur on a global scale. I think you and I could both agree that a situation like that of the glades, but extended to a global scale, is to be avoided if at all possible.

[Justtristo]

I can forgive people who don't know any better who don't believe that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. However I cannot forgive those who willfully ignore that fact. The same goes for those who want to prevent children from being immunized or believe in Young Earth Christian Creationism.

[The Grand Nudger]

Heres a bit of irony in the example of the glades that you guys may appreciate.

We drained the area so that we could grow more sugar.
Unfortunately we lost a lot of the dry season rain that occurred locally due to all those shallow pools of water evaporating.
We then pumped water in to irrigate, which ran off into the glades (along with a bunch of other nasty shit)
Next we had to pump all of that used up irrigation out again, and back into previously "clean" sources of water
Now we have a problem with water quality, and it costs even more to process it for irrigation......

Talk about vicious circularity.

Anyone who reads that link in it's entirety wanna join me for an epic facepalm btw?

[The Magic Pudding]

[i]"People can choose not to believe in [man-made] climate change - but the correct term here is 'belief' - believing is an act of faith, whereas science is a testing of hypotheses and seeing whether they hold up against real world data.

Belief, fuck I don’t want one of those, I think I’ll call it a recognition of possible/probable danger. I don’t see this as faith, more a survival mechanism.

[quote='Welsh cake' pid='151947' dateline='1309948606'] I don’t accept anything on faith, be it the existence of Australia or the sun rising in the morning.

I don’t really believe that is possible, if by faith you mean without evidence you haven’t personally verified. I’m never going to verify the existence of the Amazon jungle but I accept it’s there. I accept the bridges I drive over will support my vehicle.

And I'm a climate-change denier by their reckoning? Really? So if I'm unconvinced by all the god claims and don't believe in god, am I a god-denier?

I suppose you would be, what’s the point?

God botherers say I shouldn’t sleep so long Sundays for nonsensical reasons, I sleep on.
A majority of people smarter than me, without a history of lying, without much to gain from lying say it would be best if we cut greenhouse gas emissions, I think it’s sensible to listen. A few deny for various reasons, self interest, eccentricity and bloody mindedness would explain most of it for me.

No, I reject that statement; I don’t accept anything on faith, be it the existence of Australia or the sun rising in the morning.

So what, do you brush your teeth and do your sums before you go to bed at night?
Australia exists, at least that’s what we call the thing we walk on around here, it all could be a joke at my expense.

IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted.

I thought their purpose was to review existing research. Can’t we find a better reason to discount their conclusions, sex, bribery, alien interference or red menace?


[quote='Welsh cake' pid='151947' dateline='1309948606'] BBC have been criticised since forever for their basis towards climate change and campaigning on the issue whenever the opportunity arises, so on this issue they are not a trustworthy source

Well that would depend on by who, why and how they have been criticised.

they are seeking to proselytise and scaremonger; they’re not giving me the impartiality on the subject I require.

I don’t think publishing the results of research is proselytising.
Many informed people are scared, some resigned to a future dystopia.
Not giving you impartiality? Well why not read the thousands of papers the IPCC reviewed and come to your own conclusion.

I am not certain beyond reasonable doubt it is happening therefore it would be intellectually dishonest of me and hypocritical to accept the findings without trying to apply scrutiny to them first.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a high level of proof, balance of probabilities will get you dollars in a civil case. The world won’t sit still until you’re satisfied.

[Welsh cake]

Some well documented examples of human induced climate change that just immediately spring to mind, would be Londons famous fog, the dust bowl here in the states, Big sugars draining of the glades and the subsequent change in flora, fauna, and yes, even rainfall in S FL.

While this depends on your definition of climate change you will appreciate an anticyclone settling over a windless London in the winter of 1952, that caused a temperature inversion with cold, stagnant air trapped under a layer of warm air, that prevented pollutants such as sulphur dioxide from being dispersed as normal DOES NOT constitute as human-induced climate change, no more than the recent freezing fog grounded all air traffic at Heathrow Airport two winters ago.

I'm not disputing on how we can damage the local environment, ecosystem and our health via pollutants, that's demonstrable, but when for example naturally occurring phenomena such as lighting striking an oilfield causes a notable impact we do not automatically assume such events as supporting evidence for human-induced climate change, that's just daft.

I don’t really believe that is possible, if by faith you mean without evidence you haven’t personally verified. I’m never going to verify the existence of the Amazon jungle but I accept it’s there.

But you CAN verify the existence of the Amazon jungle if required to for whatever reason. You're missing the point of what I was saying.

I accept the bridges I drive over will support my vehicle.

Right, and what I'm saying is that *simple observational skills* can be used and are employed to verify whether that bridge is structurally sound or not. I don't accept the bridge will support me on faith. A very brief inspection of these two bridges will tell you whether they are worthy for rail traffic, and I didn't use any faith at all to work which one is unfit for purpose:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/bermudafan8/219357059/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/alaska48/3976416262/

No, faith gets thrown out the window with the illusion of absolute certainty, the chocolate saucepan and other such useless and asinine concepts.

A majority of people smarter than me, without a history of lying, without much to gain from lying say it would be best if we cut greenhouse gas emissions, I think it’s sensible to listen.

I can't speak for others but I'm not saying I'm ignoring their claims, on the contrary, we are discussing them right now.

Australia exists, at least that’s what we call the thing we walk on around here, it all could be a joke at my expense.

There you go, independently confirmable by Australians, and not by faith.

I thought their purpose was to review existing research. Can’t we find a better reason to discount their conclusions, sex, bribery, alien interference or red menace?

IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted.

Well that would depend on by who, why and how they have been criticised.

Indeed but I have a wall that's not going to build itself and I'm responding here out of politeness, so if you want to investigate these criticisms by all means knock yourself out, perhaps you will enlighten me on what's being said next time?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC

they are seeking to proselytise and scaremonger; they’re not giving me the impartiality on the subject I require.

Not giving you impartiality? Well why not read the thousands of papers the IPCC reviewed and come to your own conclusion.

IPCC carries out no original research and will be discounted.

Beyond reasonable doubt is a high level of proof, balance of probabilities will get you dollars in a civil case. The world won’t sit still until you’re satisfied.

Come again?

[The Grand Nudger]

So, the fog that became synonymous with London had nothing to do with the amount of soot in the air...nothing at all? It's not an example of ACC, even on a small scale?

[Autumnlicious]

While this depends on your definition of climate change you will appreciate an anticyclone settling over a windless London in the winter of 1952, that caused a temperature inversion with cold, stagnant air trapped under a layer of warm air, that prevented pollutants such as sulphur dioxide from being dispersed as normal DOES NOT constitute as human-induced climate change, no more than the recent freezing fog grounded all air traffic at Heathrow Airport two winters ago.

Wait - so human produced pollutants (SO2) in an environment had no effect in the winter of 1952? If they did not, then humans are not to blame.

Please clarify.

[Welsh cake]

So, the fog that became synonymous with London had nothing to do with the amount of soot in the air...nothing at all? It's not an example of ACC, even on a small scale?

Look, London was already accustomed to thick fogs, know why? Because after WW2 it was an economic necessity to import cheap crap coal from abroad (mainly Poland) which meant that better-quality 'hard' Welsh coals were exported, which increased the amount of sulphur dioxide in the smoke, consequently while coal-fired power stations at Battersea *reduced the output of soot* to the best of our knowledge it was at the cost of *increased sulphur dioxide*. Additionally, after WW2 the electric tram system was abandoned, this meant a substantial increase in vehicle exhaust from the diesel-fuelled buses which had replaced the trams. Soot was a contributing factor, but not responsible for the great smog alone.

And since when was air pollution an example of climate change? You have to be messing with me. Next minute you'll be arguing the radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl disaster is an example of human-induced climate change. Believe me, I won't be sticking around if you do.

Wait - so human produced pollutants (SO2) in an environment had no effect in the winter of 1952? If they did not, then humans are not to blame.

Please clarify.

The anticyclone settled over a windless London, causing a temperature inversion, this collected the airborne pollutants already present in the air over the city to form a *thicker layer of smog* over the city.

The airborne pollutants did NOT induce the anticyclone. The air pollution did NOT influence the weather. The weather influenced the airborne pollutants to form the thicker than usual layer of smog. As soon as the weather changed the smog dispersed quickly. To imply otherwise is to make a horribly invalid causal connection.

And WTF Moros? Why kudos Rhythm's response if you're asking me for clarification because you supposedly didn't understand my previous post? Are you being serious with me? 0_o