Thousands gather to protest against global warming

[Flyfisher]

An interesting point about the collapse of civilisations, Biff. Indeed, what if it is in the very nature of civilisation to collapse upon itself after only a few hundred years? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826501.500-why-the-demise-of-civilisation-may-be-inevitable.html?full=true

Perhaps we just take ourselves too seriously because we're the first secies to be able to do so? How many preceding species on this planet have ever actively modified their behaviour for our benefit? Zoom out so that the age of the universe can be considered in some barely-comprehensible manner and our presence is so infinitesimally small that we may as well not exist anyway. So what's all the fuss about? It's all just a matter of perspective. Some people are worrying about the state of the climate for future unborn generations while millions are worrying right now about where their next meal is going to come from or whether they'll be alive next week.

Or maybe God is just testing us and, just to be on the safe side, only put just enough fossil fuel into the mix when making the Earth some 6000 years ago so that we could kick-start the industrial revolution, but not enough to completely screw things up. After all, only a small proportion of the most advanced nation on the planet** believes in natural evolution anyway, so perhaps that's why there is such apparent difficulty in getting AGW taken seriously enough to actually do anything about it?

**http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

[Flyfisher]

Re the troll definition. If the definition is correct, why are they necessarily a bad thing?

I think the troll thing is where an argument is the sole objective and has no bearing on the actual beliefs of the trolling person, e.g. arguing that the sky is green instead of blue just for the sake of it.

Discussion borne out of actual and consistent belief can't seriously be considered trolling except, perhaps, by a troll. :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

Just for the record, I do not deny climate change. I am agnostic. I just don't think the climate change lobby are going about convincing the world in the right way. Hence the reference to Cassandra. She was right in fortelling disaster but her curse was that no one believed her.

Re the troll definition. If the definition is correct, why are they necessarily a bad thing? Surely, argument is better that apathy? I think for a lot of people the global warming debate does engender apathy. I don't buy the line that that we musn't let those who deny climate change have their say because they are dangerous. You need an open debate or trust is lost.

Are you also agnostic about the rest of scientific understanding about how the world works? There's plenty of stuff that is much harder to understand, such as why mobile phones work, but folk don't say, "hmmm, I dunno, not sure whether phones actually work".

Re the troll thing, there's past form, from before you joined PPUK, to take into account

 

[bower1]

Are you also agnostic about the rest of scientific understanding about how the world works? There's plenty of stuff that is much harder to understand, such as why mobile phones work, but folk don't say, "hmmm, I dunno, not sure whether phones actually work".

This point has been made before, but you can test a mobile phone yourself to see whether it works. You don't have to believe anyone else. If you gave the average person the theory of a mobile phone before anyone had made one, with some scientific papers about how some trials were done, and asked them to say whether they were going to work, they wouldn't have a clue, or would guess, or would believe they would, or might believe they wouldn't. All the same reactions as you get from the global warming debate. If 30 or so years ago you asked the average person to put their own money up front to invest in these 'new phones' or change their lifestyles to get one 'when they exist' most, I suspect, would not.

 

[biffvernon]

Yes and wouldn't they now kick themselves. But losing out on telecoms shares is not quite as important as the end of life.

You can test global warming for yourself. Visit (or to save the carbon cost of travelling do it through the online satellite images) the world's glaciers and see how they are retreating, or the Arctic Ocean and see how the extent of sea ice is not what it used to be, or, at one step removed, look at the temperature records and sea level measurements that have been gathered by trustworthy people. Global warming is happening with as much certainty as a mobile phone ringing.

Agnosticism is for those who have not opened their eyes.

Here's a report, published this morning by the Institution of Civil Engineers, entitled Facing up to Rising Sea Level

http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/facing-up

It has a direct relevance for Period Properties. Look at the map of Hull in the report and tell me what is the greatest threat to our architectural heritage.

There are three scenarios, Hull Retreats, Defends and Attacks.
My guess is that 'Retreats' is the most viable scenario, but owing to stupidity (and I don't claim the the good folk of Hull are any more stupid than the rest of us) it will all unfurl more chaotically than in the ICE report.

 

[bower1]

Yes and wouldn't they now kick themselves. .

No, because they saved lots of money on all the things that didn't make money or work.

But losing out on telecoms shares is not quite as important as the end of life..

Completely agree, which is why you can't compare the two.

You can test global warming for yourself. Visit (or to save the carbon cost of travelling do it through the online satellite images) the world's glaciers and see how they are retreating, or the Arctic Ocean and see how the extent of sea ice is not what it used to be, or, at one step removed, look at the temperature records and sea level measurements that have been gathered by trustworthy people. Global warming is happening with as much certainty as a mobile phone ringing.

As has been said may times, climate change and its causes are two different issues. Plus, seeing glaciers retreating tells be that glaciers are retreating. Speaking to someone on a phone tells me I can speak to someone on a phone.

I'm not trying to deny anything here, I just can't accept the the analogy between phones and climate.

 

[Flyfisher]

Global warming is happening with as much certainty as a mobile phone ringing.

I can't agree with that because the mobile phone is 100% a human invention. A lot of people may not understand how they work but there are people who know, with 100% certainty, the science behind them because they designed them from scratch. That can never be said of AGW because it is dependent upon a planetary climate system that nobody fully understands, which leaves things open to some doubt.

I understand (I think) the spirit of Biff's analogy and I fully admit that the above is a rather pedantic criticism, but it's the sort of ***** that the anti-AGW movement grabs onto and we end up with a debate about an analogy rather than the core issue. This, and similar but distracting arguments around the nature of scientific 'proof' are, I suspect, part of the reason why we're doomed to just rearrange the deckchairs. Basically, people don't want to believe AGW and are wonderfully adept at finding ways to distract themselves from the predicted consequences. Keep Calm And Carry On.

 

[biffvernon]

there are people who know, with 100% certainty, the science behind them because they designed them from scratch.

Ah, I picked mobile phones rather than, say, tin-openers, because they rely on the application of quantum mechanics, which, as Feynman declared, anyone who claims to understand doesn't actually understand.
We know it works but, right at the heart, we don't really know why.

 

[wobs]

Here's a report, published this morning by the Institution of Civil Engineers, entitled Facing up to Rising Sea Level

http://www.buildingfutures.org.uk/projects/building-futures/facing-up

It has a direct relevance for Period Properties. Look at the map of Hull in the report and tell me what is the greatest threat to our architectural heritage.

There are three scenarios, Hull Retreats, Defends and Attacks.
My guess is that 'Retreats' is the most viable scenario, but owing to stupidity (and I don't claim the the good folk of Hull are any more stupid than the rest of us) it will all unfurl more chaotically than in the ICE report.

Duly put in diary for when exhibition comes to Hull. Cheers.

The EA have much to say on the issue of course, with flood defence plans by region. Controlled retreat for certain rural areas East of Hull, and defence for Hull itself. I read a detailed report on it last year (with pics and evrything!), but can't find it now.

 

[Flyfisher]

there are people who know, with 100% certainty, the science behind them because they designed them from scratch.

Ah, I picked mobile phones rather than, say, tin-openers, because they rely on the application of quantum mechanics, which, as Feynman declared, anyone who claims to understand doesn't actually understand.
We know it works but, right at the heart, we don't really know why.

Well, OK, fair enough, but down at that level of things it could be argued that we don't really know why most things work either. But, what we can do with a mobile phone is do an experiment; we do X and Y happens. Different people around the world can repeat X and Y still happens. Thus we become 100% sure that when we do X, Y happens and, using this information we can build a mobile phone, or a computer, etc. Modelling is widely used in the electronics design industry, but prototypes (experiments) are still used to verify what actually happens.

AGW is different. All we can have is a model and the model can't be shown to be 100% accurate. The model may show that when we add X to the atmosphere, Y will happen after few decades, but there's no way to verify this by experimentation.

There, you see, we've been deflected towards discussing the analogy instead of the issue! :wink:

 

[christianb]

if we continue to burn the fossil carbon till it's all gone this planet will no longer support human life, and will probably no longer support any life. You might not believe that but what you believe won't make a jot of difference, except in so far as you have influence on policy makers who can make a difference. That's what makes the deniers so dangerous. They are putting life, all life, for ever, at risk.

What mendacious twaddle.

 

[Flyfisher]

Because . . . . ?

 

[middi]

It is my turn to "twaddle".

Let us assume, and believe scientific discoveries thus far, that there will be an end to all life (eventually).
Our priority, due to genetic default, should be the survival of OUR species
Our species will only survive if they can live in a symbiotic relationship with all other species, excluding wasps, (ba****ds !!!)
The attitude,it appears, is to ensure the survival of ourselves on an individual basis and the universe will end approx. 70/100 years after we are born. ( unless we get run over by one of our inventions or get "weeded" out by natural slection)

We have a lot of evolving to do ,I'm afraid. if we wish to sustain the "human" form and not succumbe to "weeding".
It appears we are the ones using the " weedkiller"

 

[biffvernon]

All we can have is a model and the model can't be shown to be 100% accurate.

No, that's not all that we have. We have the observation of physical experiments (started in the 19th century). We have the construction of models from those experiments. We have the observations of the real world and comparison of those observations with the models. We have refinement of the models and further experimentation, observation...the whole scientific process. And the average Joe can go Ellesmere Island and wave to a polar bear as it floats off on a melting ice floe into the not quickly setting sun.

And you can look at the data:

I find this at least as certain as the idea that my mobile phone will work (more certain, actually) (if you can have degrees of certainty).

 

[biffvernon]

What mendacious twaddle.

What mendacious twaddle?

 

[Flyfisher]

Biff, we're splitting hairs. Yes, we have loads of historical data, yes we have fancy models, but the fact is that predicting the climate in 2100 is just that - a prediction. It cannot be subject to experimental confirmation. However, we can prove, beyond doubt, that mobile phones work. But I can't see how that helps us with AGW; it's just another distraction.

I find this at least as certain . . . .

There's that 'faith' thing cropping up again. :wink:

 

[biffvernon]

Ah, I was talking about what is. What will be is always subject to uncertainty.
(I'm certain my phone won't be working in 2100.)

 

[biffvernon]

Here's a new essay by Hansen et al:

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf

 

[Pford75]

Re the troll thing, there's past form, from before you joined PPUK, to take into account

I won't comment on the rest of this thread, lest I be accused of trolling again. But the 'past form' which irritates Biff is that I took exception to what I considered to be a racist reference (slurring those who choose to wear turbans or arab headwear) and complained to the mods...they agreed and removed the reference.

I can't agree that this is trolling...or that merely offerring an alternative view to Biffs (whilst always being respectful of his and never indulging in personal insults) can be anything other than debate

 

[biffvernon]

But the 'past form' which irritates Biff is that I took exception to what I considered to be a racist reference...

Er, no, that would certainly not irritate me. I'd have no truck racism, whatsoever.

It's just the global warming thing.