Global warming - man made, natural, or just plain not happening?

[rynnor]

But I will say this: "Man made chemicals break the equilibrium of ozone destruction and regeneration (in the outer atmosphere)"

Without them we wouldnt have a big hole.

Again - we havent monitored this for any length of time so we cannot say whether the holes are natural or not - there is no statistical basis for an opinion.

I must also add that large amounts of gases that could be linked to a greenhouse effect are released by natural volcanic activity - the holes may have existed on and off since the planet was formed...

 

[leggy]

there is no statistical basis for an opinion.

There is, though, a thing called science, reasonable doubt and common sense.

Do you think the people studying these things dont know what they are talking about? Are we all so arrogant that we dismiss everything as bollocks without ANY proof whatsoever?

Some of these scientists dedicate their lives to these studies. I'm pretty sure they are more qualified that us forum know-it-alls to decide if their research is accurate or not.

 

[Trem]

Plus the lower usage of the harmful gasses are reducing the hole in the o-zone. I suppose that isn't proof enough either?

 

[Chilly]

The point is no one fucking knows!
Another point from that graph, I rekon CO2 isnt a direct cause of increase in temperature, although clearly there is a correlation, albeit time delayed. But you cant say ice cream companies are responsible for skin cancer occurance simply because ice cream and skin cancer both come hand in hand with very hot places like australia - there may well be a link, but they may BOTH be consequences of a different process.

 

[Uriel]

I guess what this thread and the innumerable, similar, discussions on the subject shows is that because people are basing their arguments on science there's rarely, if ever, going to be a knock-out blow from either side. What distinguishes science from pseudo-science is inductive logic and the possibility of falsification i.e. something is only scientifically 'true' until it's been proven incorrect.

This is no good for governments though and following on from the experience of dealing with Ozone depletion a good, but old, guide to which can be found here it was decided by a number of nations to adopt something called the 'precautionary principle'.

Long story short, if global warming turns out to be correct - i.e. that the industrial activities of mankind are accelerating the effects of global warming to a dangerous degree, then a lot of people are going to be screwed. (Particularly the insurance industry, which as a component of finance capital, has a lot of say in contemporary global affairs, but I digress…) If, on the other hand, mankind's contribution to global warming is minimal/non-existent then all that's been lost is the cost of cutting back Co2. So, some governments are acting even though mankind's effect on global warming is not definite because a) it's never going to be definite and b) the opportunity cost of not acting is far worse than acting and being wrong.

Incidentally, from what I can recall following the Montreal Protocol of 1997, some of the more savvy environmental activists were up in arms because a number of the chemicals proposed as alternatives to the major ozone depleters, in fact, contributed to the phenomena of global warming...

 

[Bodhi]

Maybe the holes in the Ozone layer are the earth trying to release all those excess greenhouse gases into outer space.


Has anyone thought about that? Eh?

 

[Scouse]

Well I agree that we are harming the environment in many ways but regardless of much hype its certainly not proven that the climate is warming up and even less provable that mankind has had any effect on it.

Actually. To get off to a bad start here and probably get your back up enough so you won't listen: You're wrong.

The evidence that the actions of man are heating up the environment is now so overwhelming that the science has now shifted from "is it happening?" to "what's going to happen?", "how bad will it be?" and "how long is it going to take?".

The only evidence that is still being produced that says that global warming is not happening is being funded exclusively by industries with a vested interest in curbing the extent of any governmental action that will hurt their bottom lines. They've also found that one of the best ways of doing this is deliberately creating sceptisism in the public by creating uncertainty and doubt about the science.

Remember - companies have a lot more of an advertising budget than underfunded scientists so the "it's not happening" stuff gets more coverage nowadays.

I must also add that large amounts of gases that could be linked to a greenhouse effect are released by natural volcanic activity - the holes may have existed on and off since the planet was formed...

Here you've either made a mistake or demonstrated your ignorance on the subject. Greenhouse gases have nothing to do with the holes in the ozone layer.

You are, however, right in saying that greenhouse gasses are released by natural volcanic activity. However, you're wrong in your implication that this could be the sole cause of the current warming rate - recent volcanic activity does not produce anywhere near enough of the gases to explain the genuine acceleration of warming that we're experiencing.


BTW. For those that think that Britain will heat up - the current accepted view is that we'll freeze. The gulf stream which affords us our stable tepid temperatures relies on the salinity of the water as a fundamental part of the mechanism that keeps the current going. In the vast majority of models that apply to this field of research the salinity of the Northern Atlantic is affected enough to halt the gulf stream.

So loads of skiing for us!