Do you believe that Global Warming is being caused by us?

RayM

It's quite depressing that almost 60% of the people who have voted in this poll disagree with over 90 per cent of the world's scientists. How can less than ten per cent of the world's scientists be so influential, particularly when the sheer paucity of their zombie arguments is exposed again and again?

There is so much propaganda out there, perpetuated by the predominantly right-wing commercial media, and it's frankly disgusting that so many people are falling for it.

Danno

Are 90% of the worlds scientists are on the IPCC? Come on mate!

RayM

Danno wrote: »

Are 90% of the worlds scientists are on the IPCC? Come on mate!

Well, here's one survey, where 97% of climatologists surveyed believe that global warming is caused by humans. Are they all wrong? Come on...

Oddly enough, a minority (47%) of petroleum geologists share that opinion.

Who to trust on this... decisions, decisions. I'm no carrot-munching greenie, but personally I'd be somewhat more inclined to trust the judgement of the majority of the scientific community, as opposed to those with very clear financially-driven agendas.

Danno

If these Scientists are being paid by Governments to examine Global Warming, sorry, Climate Change then it will be found.

When we all are paying €3 litre petrol and €300 per month ESB bills - NAMA will seem like a piece of cake.

Climate Change is the new religion, Carbon Taxes are it's royalties.

Turtwig

Danno wrote: »

If these Scientists are being paid by Governments to examine Global Warming, sorry, Climate Change then it will be found.

When we all are paying €3 litre petrol and €300 per month ESB bills - NAMA will seem like a piece of cake.

Climate Change is the new religion, Carbon Taxes are it's royalties.

Nearly all science foundations are either privately funded or government funded.
Regardless of carbon tax, petrol prices and energy prices are going to rise because fossils fuels are running out.

Climate Change Denialism is the new creationism/anti AIDs.
Same tactics, same methods.

Danno

I am not denying Climate Change. The Climate has always been changing and always will. Periods of time will be colder and warmer once again. Carbon is NOT responsible.

I have no problem with not burning fossil fuels, however, why tax the bejeasus out of us whilst no alternatives exist? A scam of the heighest order is what is going on.

IF the Governments want to stop Carbon levels increasing then set a year. Say 2020 or 2025 to have an outright ban on diesel and petrol. This gives industry a chance to develop new cars, power plants etc...

But they don't want it like this. They want to increase Carbon Tax bit by bit every year. Like they did with excise duty on tobacco, alcohol and the most famous of them all VAT. When the 1% rate of VAT was first mooted in the 1960s approx a solemn promise was made by the Government never to increase it.

Fast forward forty odd years and they slapped 20% on to it and drove shoppers into Newry.

Question buddy... do you trust the Government to invest in alternative fuels? Already they have CUT public transport in Dublin whilst INCREASING fuel tax, they are putting more lanes on the M50 - I think they want us to drive? Can you smell the rat now - cause I surely can and it is foul, most foul.

Turtwig

Danno wrote: »

Question buddy... do you trust the Government to invest in alternative fuels? Already they have CUT public transport in Dublin whilst INCREASING fuel tax, they are putting more lanes on the M50 - I think they want us to drive? Can you smell the rat now - cause I surely can and it is foul, most foul.

Don't trust the present Government with anything, can't say it's my fault though. Also, why would on earth would they want to cut the speed limit to 80km/h and 100km/h in the interests of car efficiency if they secretly wanted to people to burn as much pertrol as possible?
I have mixed feeling on carbon tax, as do many scientists.

I am not denying Climate Change. The Climate has always been changing and always will. Periods of time will be colder and warmer once again. Carbon is NOT responsible.

So 100% of all Climatologists who say Carbon Dioxide and the Sun have been the two major factors that have affected earths climate have got it wrong?
Perhaps you just mistyped?
Carbon dioxide is responsible for changing the climate, nobody can this deny this. What they can question is the extent to which is it responsible. However the consensus amongst the worlds climatologists through independent research (not just the IPCC) say CO2 is the primary factor for the current change the earth is undergoing.
Not only that but all alternatives hypothesises that dispute AGW don't explain near as many details as the AGW model currently does.

RayM

Danno wrote: »

If these Scientists are being paid by Governments to examine Global Warming, sorry, Climate Change then it will be found.

I'm sure you don't disagree that the vast majority of scientists believe that global warming is caused by human activity. To suggest that so many people hold that belief simply because they're being paid to do so, is beyond disingenuous... like so much of the denialist nonsense, it's barking-mad conspiracy theory lunacy.

Danno wrote:

When we all are paying €3 litre petrol and €300 per month ESB bills - NAMA will seem like a piece of cake.

That's what this all boils down to. It's inconvenient for me to be forced to pay extortionate amounts of money to fill my car, heat my house, etc... therefore, the scientific consensus on global warming is completely wrong, and the petroleum industry-funded studies which have been given a disproportionately high amount of coverage and respectability than such pernicious misrepresentations of scientific data deserve, are completely correct.

However, I agree entirely that taxing the hell out of fossil fuels (while cutting public transport and making it impossible not to own a car) is not the answer. It's seriously inequitable to allow only those who have the financial wherewithal to run 4.2 V8 SUVs, etc, to do so with impunity. I live in a town which (as a direct result of recent cuts) is served by virtually no public transport. I have no choice but to drive everywhere, and I'd love it if the climate sceptics were right... but... I'd also like to believe in God, Santa and the Easter Bunny.

Danno wrote:

Climate Change is the new religion, Carbon Taxes are it's royalties.

As has already been said, the denialists share far more in common with religion. Not unlike creationism, climate change denial (or denying that it is caused by human activity) requires a steadfast and obstinate refusal to yield to the most compelling of evidence from the majority of respected scientific fields. It's real "hand over ears" stuff...

octo

Danno wrote: »

I am not denying Climate Change. The Climate has always been changing and always will. Periods of time will be colder and warmer once again. Carbon is NOT responsible.

Hi Danno - Scientists accept this, and it's climate scientists we can thank for revealing to us the history of climate. It doesn't really add to your argument. The point is that what's happening now is at a pace that outstrips most of the change periods of the past, it is destructive and preventable.

It's like saying there's always been cancer and there always will be cancer, and therefore it's pointless trying to prevent it or to say that my 40 john player blue a day habit caused it because mikey down the road got cancer and he never smoked a day in his life.

Danno wrote: »

I have no problem with not burning fossil fuels, however, why tax the bejeasus out of us whilst no alternatives exist? A scam of the heighest order is what is going on.

Again, that might be true, governments will always find a reason to increase taxes, but it's not an argument against the science of anthropogenic climate change. Its an argument based on motivation, not substance.

I will concede though that a lot of media commentators consistently present the worst case scenarios of the climate projections.

But please stick to the point!

Deep Easterly

RayM wrote: »

It's quite depressing that almost 60% of the people who have voted in this poll disagree with over 90 per cent of the world's scientists. How can less than ten per cent of the world's scientists be so influential, particularly when the sheer paucity of their zombie arguments is exposed again and again?

There is so much propaganda out there, perpetuated by the predominantly right-wing commercial media, and it's frankly disgusting that so many people are falling for it.

No, what would be depressing is if everybody just accepted what was being told to them by the media. There is a lot of propaganda on both sides, probably more so from Pro Climate Change side, so don't try that one.

Another thing that amuses me is how Climate Change protagonists readily fling out labels such as "right-wing" on people that like to question the constant influx of Climate Change propaganda . I like to question, no matter what I am being told, but I am neither a corporatist or Free Market advocate so stop assuming and stick to the science rather than the pseudo-politics please.

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

No, what would be depressing is if everybody just accepted what was being told to them by the media. There is a lot of propaganda on both sides, probably more so from Pro Climate Change side, so don't try that one.

Another thing that amuses me is how Climate Change protagonists readily fling out labels such as "right-wing" on people that like to question the constant influx of Climate Change propaganda . I like to question, no matter what I am being told, but I am neither a corporatist or Free Market advocate so stop assuming and stick to the science rather than the pseudo-politics please.

First of all the people who promote Pro Climate Change propaganda tend* to be leftist. The people who promote Climate Change denial propaganda tend to be righties. The people who promote neither, tend to resort to facepalms.

*Most often, they are exceptions to both sides of course.

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

First of all the people who promote Pro Climate Change propaganda tend* to be leftist. The people who promote Climate Change denial propaganda tend to be righties. The people who promote neither, tend to resort to facepalms.

*Most often, they are exceptions to both sides of course.

And the world is that simple is it? I am considered a "leftist", but am I not a true "leftist" if I like to bring up what I see as contradictions in an argument?

Tell me.

MrCreosote

Su Campu wrote: »

Bull.

Where did you hear that? Explain to me the scientific reasoning in that. Explain how the climate is going to change so that Ireland will get more rainy spells in succession, which is what caused those floods.
The real reason those houses got flooded is because basically people are gob$hites. They rezone land for housing in known flood plains, cover more and more natural drainage with concrete and then wonder why the drains aren't sufficient. Then when the polar jet sticks around Ireland for a few weeks and dumps a load of rain on us, the people on the ground are the ones who pay for it.

The majority of the climate projections for Ireland show more rain in the west, less in the east and a greater probability of extreme rain events. A greater probability over a long enough timeline means that went almost certainly will happen. One of the causes of the high rainfall in the November event was the above normal sea temps this year, which will most likely increase with global warming.

I won't comment on the actual flooding of housing- like you say where you build the house is the most important factor. But read my statement again- events like November's floods will probably become more common with global warming. Climate is one thing, where you build houses is another.

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

And the world is that simple is it? I am considered a "leftist", but am I not a true "leftist" if I like to bring up what I see as contradictions in an argument?

Tell me.

I wasn't talking about you.
I was talking about the Western World in general.
Those in pushing extreme climate change tend to be on the left liberals.
Those pushing extreme deniership tend to be on the conservative right.

There is no such thing as a "true" anything, everything is relative.
I don't know what you are and I'm not labelling you as anything, I'm just stating the general trend among the population.

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

I wasn't talking about you.
I was talking about the Western World in general.
Those in pushing extreme climate change tend to be on the left liberals.
Those pushing extreme deniership tend to be on the conservative right.

There is no such thing as a "true" anything, everything is relative.
I don't know what you are and I'm not labelling you as anything, I'm just stating the general trend among the population.

Fair enough. but it is the use of the general trend that gets to me, it just assumes and labels unjustly. I said earlier that I am open to the idea that Climate Change is occurring, and without doubt the world has warmed significantly. I am still none the wiser though that this is either a completely natural phase or one that is part due to colossal industrial emissions. I have yet to be convinced either way.

I do become very concerned though when fuel is taxed and upped in price simple on the basis that it might stop further warming. I have no problem with large Corporations being taxed heavily on this, but to tax ordinary people is another matter. People need heat, it is a fact of life. We live in a cold climate and should not apologize or feel guilty for doing so. Yet the poorest in society will be soon unable (as opposed to those who are currently unable) to to buy fuel to keep warm if fuel tax continues to increase.

I find it ironic that we will have people dying of the cold soon to help stop global warming, and once again, it will be the poor that will suffer the most.

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Fair enough. but it is the use of the general trend that gets to me, it just assumes and labels unjustly. I said earlier that I am open to the idea that Climate Change is occurring, and without doubt the world has warmed significantly. I am still none the wiser though that this is either a completely natural phase or one that is part due to colossal industrial emissions. I have yet to be convinced either way.

I do become very concerned though when fuel is taxed and upped in price simple on the basis that it might stop further warming. I have no problem with large Corporations being taxed heavily on this, but to tax ordinary people is another matter. People need heat, it is a fact of life. We live in a cold climate and should not apologize or feel guilty for doing so. Yet the poorest in society will be soon unable (as opposed to those who are currently unable) to to buy fuel to keep warm if fuel tax continues to increase.

I find it ironic that we will have people dying of the cold soon to help stop global warming, and once again, it will be the poor that will suffer the most.

Well, now, the only way to understand the issue is (unfortunately) to grab a few cups of coffee and starting reading the scientific literature. I'm sorry but that's how you're gonna have to go about it if you want to properly understand it and/or criticise it.
As for the tax, I really don't know.Doing something is better than nothing but is it actually something even worthwhile?

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

Well, now, the only way to understand the issue is (unfortunately) to grab a few cups of coffee and starting reading the scientific literature. I'm sorry but that's how you're gonna have to go about it if you want to properly understand it and/or criticise it.
As for the tax, I really don't know.Doing something is better than nothing but is it actually something even worthwhile?

So you would have the poor die of the cold to achieve something "worthwhile"? Wow, revolution man...

As to reading the science, I am not scientific minded, but I have read enough to not convince me either way. Do you propose every ordinary person should take time and sit down and "read the science"? or would you have them just accept what they are being told like the good little sheep that they are?

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

So you would have the poor die of the cold to achieve something "worthwhile"? Wow, revolution man...

As to reading the science, I am not scientific minded, but I have read enough to not convince me either way. Do you propose every ordinary person should take time and sit down and "read the science"? or would you have them just accept what they are being told like the good little sheep that they are?

Em?
Read it again, I'm saying the taxes might just be a waste of time.

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect someone to understand something before they criticise it or dismiss it.

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

Em?
Read it again, I'm saying the taxes might just be a waste of time.

Yeah, I think it's reasonable to expect someone to understand something before they criticise it or dismiss it.

But not if they accept it?

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

But not if they accept it?

Sorry meant to clarify, they should remain agnostic or neutral until they clarify their position. Afterall, the only way democracy works is when people make informed decisions not gut based intuitions.

Deep Easterly

Malty_T wrote: »

Sorry meant to clarify, they should remain agnostic or neutral until they clarify their position. Afterall, the only way democracy works is when people make informed decisions not gut based intuitions.

Most people who are being unjustly taxed on essential fuel supplies I am sure will have little understanding of the Science, yet they are willingly, or unwilling playing their part. The decision to do so is made for them, not by them. That does not sound like a democracy to me.

octo

MrCreosote wrote: »

The majority of the climate projections for Ireland show more rain in the west, less in the east and a greater probability of extreme rain events. A greater probability over a long enough timeline means that went almost certainly will happen. One of the causes of the high rainfall in the November event was the above normal sea temps this year, which will most likely increase with global warming.

I won't comment on the actual flooding of housing- like you say where you build the house is the most important factor. But read my statement again- events like November's floods will probably become more common with global warming. Climate is one thing, where you build houses is another.

Rainfall stats, particularly on a regional scale like Ireland, are too variable to draw climate change conclusions from - you need a really long record to distinguish the signal from the noise. You can only really say that climate change increases the likelihood of an event - nobody can say anything more than that.

That's why people examine the temperature records more carefully, because they're far more consistent and it's much easier to discern significant changes.

MrCreosote

octo wrote: »

Rainfall stats, particularly on a regional scale like Ireland, are too variable to draw climate change conclusions from - you need a really long record to distinguish the signal from the noise. You can only really say that climate change increases the likelihood of an event - nobody can say anything more than that.

That's why people examine the temperature records more carefully, because they're far more consistent and it's much easier to discern significant changes.

Agreed. But there's no harm looking at the possible knock-on effects of higher temps, especially in Ireland where things like increased rainfall and rising sea levels would have more of a direct impact on people than temperature itself.

RayM

Deep Easterly wrote: »

No, what would be depressing is if everybody just accepted what was being told to them by the media. There is a lot of propaganda on both sides, probably more so from Pro Climate Change side, so don't try that one.

There is more evidence from the "Pro Climate Change" side (I'm talking about scientists, as opposed to the media). That the majority of people appear to disagree with the majority of scientists would suggest that the propaganda war is being won by the deniers, and that the widely debunked beliefs of a tiny minority of scientists (many of whom are involved in industries which stand to lose most if it was ever absolutely proven that human activity is responsible for climate change) are given far more credence than would usually be the case.

Deep Easterly

RayM wrote: »

the majority of people appear to disagree with the majority of scientists would suggest that the propaganda war is being won by the deniers, and that the widely debunked beliefs of a tiny minority of scientists (many of whom are involved in industries which stand to lose most if it was ever absolutely proven that human activity is responsible for climate change) are given far more credence than would usually be the case.

Are you serious? Where exactly do this "tiny minority of scientists" use propaganda to poison the minds of the public against the blessed AGW?

9.9 times out of ten I will hear stories in the media that are pro AGW rather than against, and yet a lot people still don't accept it and as are result are labeled "deniers". Blaming a small number of unnamed scientists for this is a bit silly tbh. I think the biggest denier propagandists are those that actually ram it down peoples throats day in, day out.

ivanthehunter

Yes it was me and you!! I caused it along with you the reader!

It our plastic packages or knives and forks it was our Holidays and all things modern.We're too efficient at cutting killing fishing building etc etc. Its the new age of no return- Do you think India will slow her economy? will her official be has honest as ours?:(

Well my friend this is the modern world weather here and whether or not we debate it, it is here to stay? for a while? for ever? who knows.

It being a separate issue it seems obvious that our human filth has reached everywhere on the earth. Its face, it's flesh and it's Air, and all to organisms on the earth a living records of or pollution..

krobo

Snow covers Copenhagen Mermaid

no comment

weisses

I suggest that everyone strips down naked tonight .. and stay outside for 30 minutes .... go back in and think how global warming is affecting you :D;)

sink

LFCFan wrote: »

Atheists and Global warming deniers are a minority but it's only because everyone else is easily led

Speaking as an atheist I would categorise 'climate change deniers' and 'god believers' in the genus 'wishful thinkers'. However I would categorise you in a sub category of 'stickin it to the man'.

Turtwig

Deep Easterly wrote: »

Are you serious? Where exactly do this "tiny minority of scientists" use propaganda to poison the minds of the public against the blessed AGW?

9.9 times out of ten I will hear stories in the media that are pro AGW rather than against, and yet a lot people still don't accept it and as are result are labeled "deniers". Blaming a small number of unnamed scientists for this is a bit silly tbh. I think the biggest denier propagandists are those that actually ram it down peoples throats day in, day out.

Sadly,
Media =/= Scientists.

Can't remember who said it but science news should be left to the science media to explain because the mainstream media nearly always fck it up.
Just two days I was reading an article in the Irish Times about the Mars Rover. Apparently, it was called Troy.

In fact it's because of the media that many scientists are afraid to go on record. Ben Goldacre has a blog on this and on how what scientists say are usually completely taken out of context and sensationsalised.
Worse still, and perhaps most depressing of all is that if one newspaper reports a finding on a scientific paper without reading it, another newspaper normally resorts to comment on the first newspaper's impression of the paper rather than actually reading the bloody science paper.

Anyways, this rant is as well and good but it seems newscientist has just taken a step to separate itself from the public. It's new policy of 7 free articles per month is not going to go down well. Especially when many of the better (well more accurate anyway) journalistic reports kinda copied verbatim what newscientist or Sciam said. I really hope they change their mind as access to their free web content was brilliant.