Too many conflicts concerning climate change...

Post Reply New Topic

Every time I turn around, I am reading something different on climate change, all of it conflicting each other. What I think will eventually happen is, scientists will figure out a way to control weather and climate and this will just be another one of those non issues.

I have no fear of progress or that Brave New World so I welcome such developments. I would much rather see mankind control it than to have them argue about whether it is relevant or not Ad Infinitum et ultra.

Scientists already control the weather. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/e ... -ever.html

Think of the size motor required to run your fridge, or your airconditioner, and think of the area it covers. I'm guessing you'd need equipment in a similar size ratio to control the weather and climate for the planet. In which case, you'd need a machine the size of the USA to do just that. Maybe you'll gain efficiencies of scale and only need a machine the size of the eastern states. Still, a bloody big machine - and then there's the problem of powering it.

As for the contradictions in climate science, I see them too, but that's more the nature of weather. What isn't in contradiction are the measurements and trends.

I saw a documentary about 12 years ago, which debunked climate change as a myth. It was chilling in its detail and made me angry that I'd been duped. But then scientists challenged that documentary, forcing the guy behind it to admit that his data was his own projections, not the true data. The true data disproved him and proved climate change was real.

Media hype and speculation has muddied the water, in the same way that hype and speculation has stopped people getting immunized.

No they won't ANA, whether we like it or not we are faced with an extremely serious issue. Its not just about the use of fossil fuels, the size of the human population itself contributes massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, then we have deforestation which has a double effect IE it releases CO2 at the same time as removing one of the asbsorber's of it.

There really is not much evidence supporting the skeptics claim that we don't have an issue. The real controversy lies not in the science but in the fact that it is going to take a lot of money and a massive change in lifestyle to fix.

What you are suggesting is some sort of carbon scrubber, this in itself, if even possible, would need to cope with its own pollution and the effect it would have on climate, simply by its action.

Basically, you would rather have faith in some future solution rather than having to pay attention to anything now. Because the science deniers have you all confused.

^ yep it kind of reminds me of Christianity and the notion that all you need do is believe in Christ and everything will be OK.

The chances of this magical world-saving technology happening while there is still a world left to save are slim and none, and slim just left the building.

Climate Change will happen no matter if humanity had an impact or not. Thus, the best things we can do is try to minimize our damage to the climate.

And/Or learn to adapt.. quickly.

There is nothing wrong with the climate. Everything is perfectly normal. Stop worrying.

Yes, that is implicit in all discussions about climate change.

I can't understand why so many people are in a panic about it. There is no indication that we need to do anything about it. Why do they think it means nothing but disaster?

Sure, there would be winners and losers. I think that the positives about Global Warming are almost sure to vastly outweigh the negatives.

Remember that the often mentioned scientific consensus is only that man plays a part in Global Warming. There is no scientific consensus that it will be a disaster.

I'm fairly sure that scientists on the side of biology say it will cause problems with food supply, largely because of the effect it will have on the food chain. It won't happen overnight, but they believe it will cause greater famines than we've seen before. I think we'll be safer here in Australia - fauna and flora here are well adapted to a dry climate.

It is precisely the part that human activity is playing that is causing the problem. Its a bit of a "the straw that broke the camels back" scenario. Our contribution to global climate change is the push over the edge. Sure life will go on, but the possibility exists for major catastrophe whilst the planet readjusts, eg mass crop failures, desertification of the oceans etc. As to your concept of winners and losers. what are you suggesting that the losers will not impact the global economy? Of course we could just refuse to accept any climate refugees, let them starve or drown!

Hey I live in an area that is sufficiently above sea level, has great soil, enjoys a temperate climate, i will be fine provided you f*****s stay away. Think locally, act locally screw the rest

Maybe i will let Narrator in, after all he is only hour and a half away.

Science ( EVERY scientific organization in the world of national and/or international reputation, and 97% of climate scientists agree with AGW) is in total agreement, global warming is real, a serious problem and we are the ones that have tipped the balance. The only conflict is ; science vs fox "news" , a VERY FEW scientists paid by the petro-chemical industry and those that think science is a vast conspiracy. Another example of this anti-science ignorance is the current debate about vaccines. VACCINES DO NOT CAUSE AUTISM!! !!

The 97% consensus is that man plays at least some part in Global Warming, not that it will be a disaster.