Yes, there is global warming.
But in order to make the evidence for it being caused by industrialisation more compelling, the Stern Report ignores certain climate aberrations from the past. We know there was a period of much colder weather in Europe in the middle ages, for example, and this was ignored in order to flatten out the pre-inductrial part of the temperature curve.
If glaringly obvious massaging of the stats is being done to make the figures fit the hypothesis, this is bad science. I'm not suggesting that industrialisation isn't responsible for global warming, but by cooking to book to "prove" that it is, the Stern Report is bad science, and it can fuck off.
(
no cake for the impuritay Patrick Stewart hasn't aged since, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:45,
Reply)
I think
that global climate change is a natural thing, and would indeed be happening even if there were no industry.
However, I think that we are having an influence by changing the chemistry in the atmosphere and on land. I fear our input may have damaged/weakened feedback mechanisms that keep climate in check, and now we may face "run-away" climate change.
I think it would be wise to limit the effect we have on atmospheric chemistry, and so I support reducing output of CO2 and other climate effecting chemicals.
(
TheAlmightyBeev, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 9:53,
Reply)
the stern report isn't the only piece of science on the subject though
I understand that the effect may have been exaggerated, but I definitely believe we are, at least in part, responsible for this - bad science comes with every big thing as people try to seek recognition in some way. The guys in the program are just desperate to get on TV or something, and there's people like that on both sides.
And frankly I'd rather be wrong and action has been taken to curb CO2 etc output, than be right and no one cares until it's too late.
As far as flattening the results go, I agree that that is a load of shit and just confuses people. There is still a general trend there, and it goes up sharply after WWII. It wasn't even necessary to flatten out the results there.
(
morrybyte made a subtle namechange at, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 11:41,
Reply)
Nope, we're all pretty much fucked.
The latest thinking is that, indeed, global warming is a several thousand year cycle from ice-age through intense heat and weather conditions back to ice-age.
The fact that it's getting hotter consistently doesn't make for global warming. During history, in England, the temperature was such that the Thames would freeze over. At other times England was covered in grape vines due to the heat (this is where Vineyard Avenues or Streets come from). I personally don't remember the correct dates, but they were around 1800 and 1600 respectively.
Then there is the fact that 80% of the CO2 in the increase every year is from plants. Plants have to respire, like us, and then they make O2 in photosynthesis. 30% of trees are now producing more CO2 than O2,for no reason we have discovered yet (to my knowledge). Phytoplankton produce upwards of 75% of all O2, yet there is no effort I've heard of that is screaming 'Save the plankton!'
AND (to end my little rant so I can go back lurking) if we did stop all production of CO2 today, in this very hour, would you think it would help?
This is a very apathetic way of looking at the problem, but seriously, this cycle - whether we started it or we sped it up, or if it's just happening - IS going on, and there is pretty much nothing that we can do to stop it or slow it down.
But no, there must be something we can do, right? Like in the movies? Or... or... like, superman, or something? ;)
(
Pointy Head poked another hole in my anorak on, Mon 12 Mar 2007, 12:56,
Reply)