Global warming

[buttercup]

I'd like to see a sub forum on global warming here, i'm amazed there's not

Anyway my first question on this subject is

Do you really think 'concerts' for global warming will help?

Of course it will raise public awareness but considering all the big pop stars have to fly in, well there's the clue.

Your thoughts?

[spot]

Concerts happen. If a concert isn't for a cause it's still a concert. It might as well be dedicated to raising public awareness and stimulating discussion at the same time as entertaining a crowd.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by buttercup

I'd like to see a sub forum on global warming here, i'm amazed there's not

Anyway my first question on this subject is

Do you really think 'concerts' for global warming will help?

Of course it will raise public awareness but considering all the big pop stars have to fly in, well there's the clue.





Your thoughts?

What I find interesting is the number of eminently qualified scientists that do not agree on Global Warming. Who to believe? Each side seems to have an agenda.

[Bill Sikes]

Originally Posted by buttercup

I'd like to see a sub forum on global warming here, i'm amazed there's not

Anyway my first question on this subject is

Do you really think 'concerts' for global warming will help?

Of course it will raise public awareness but considering all the big pop stars have to fly in, well there's the clue.

There's an "Earth changes" forum which is appropriate.

This and other "concerts" won't help and may make matters (just very slightly) worse.

[Bill Sikes]

Originally Posted by Lon

What I find interesting is the number of eminently qualified scientists that do not agree on Global Warming. Who to believe? Each side seems to have an agenda.

Put it this way - if there's an equal opinion on each side (although I think that there's now a larger body saying global warming due to man's efforts is in fact happening) - one of them is going to be wrong. What are the consequences if the "Global Warming" mob are wrong? We've wasted our efforts in that particular direction, although we will have reaped benefits (less pollution, engineering developments, etc). What if the "No Global Warming" mob are wrong? Well, we're right up shilt creek without a paddle, and the consequences would be dire.

[SlipStream]

anyone who's not head of the planet heating up must be on another world.

[Elvira]

Originally Posted by buttercup

I'd like to see a sub forum on global warming here, i'm amazed there's not

Anyway my first question on this subject is

Do you really think 'concerts' for global warming will help?

Of course it will raise public awareness but considering all the big pop stars have to fly in, well there's the clue.

Your thoughts?

I thought this on the way into work this morning, as it was on the radio.

Apart from all the stars flying in, in private jets. (they could do a jet-share scheme couldn't they?) there is all the lighting and sound equipment to consider, as well as a good few thousand people sitting in their cars with the engines on, waiting to get in, and out again!

I think the project manager for the event should consider the following options

1- Ensure all the stars travel together in a jet-share scheme, or use easy-jet!
2- Lay on public service vehicles for attendees from all major towns/cities, and DON'T LET CARS IN! That way the vehicles used will be reduced by about 60%
3- Use energy saving lightbulbs in those dirty great big lamps

[Galbally]

Originally Posted by Lon

What I find interesting is the number of eminently qualified scientists that do not agree on Global Warming. Who to believe? Each side seems to have an agenda.

Actually Lon, and I am not being sniffy here, thats a common miusconception that has been put around by certain people with a non-scientific agenda. I have to say that as far as I know, its almost entirely unanimous amoung scientists that global warming is a certainty, as is the link between global warming and increasing CO2 levels, there are a handful of scientists who disagree, (and the scientific argument is always open to question by virtue of being science in the first place), but it is truly a handful against the vast bulk of individual scientists and scientific institutions who have been accumulating the evidence for years and have no doubts that this problem is all too real unfortauntly.

The British Royal Society sorta blew this one out of the water last year, with a very good paper debunking this propoganda about the alleged 50/50 split in the scientific community (its more like a 97/3 split), I think its important that scientists are far more explicit about their conclusions from now on about this issue. It seems that the natural inclination of scientists to always qualify their findings has in this case been used very very disingenously by cynical organizations and thats been a big problem to date in trying to convince people that all this stuff is actually real. Time will tell though.

[Lon]

Originally Posted by Bill Sikes

Put it this way - if there's an equal opinion on each side (although I think that there's now a larger body saying global warming due to man's efforts is in fact happening) - one of them is going to be wrong. What are the consequences if the "Global Warming" mob are wrong? We've wasted our efforts in that particular direction, although we will have reaped benefits (less pollution, engineering developments, etc). What if the "No Global Warming" mob are wrong? Well, we're right up shilt creek without a paddle, and the consequences would be dire.

I like that----it makes sense.

[Bored_Wombat]

Originally Posted by Bill Sikes

Put it this way - if there's an equal opinion on each side (although I think that there's now a larger body saying global warming due to man's efforts is in fact happening) - one of them is going to be wrong.

I would add to this that there is in no way an equal opinion. For at least 15 years probably over 99% of the published research that takes an opinion on the subject concludes that the recent global warming (since the middle of last century) is anthropogenic.

Naomi Oreskes did this literature review that was published in (the highly esteemed and peer reviewed journal) Science. She loook at the 928 papers published 1993-2003 with the ISI keywords "global climate change" (not "climate change", as she states in the essay, there was a correction published later).

She found not one dissenting paper of the 928.


Of those very rare scientists who do dissent, (although they don't seem to have published to that effect in that decade), my experience is that the vast majority of that vast minority are not reputable scientists, and do have traceable funding form ExxonMobil or other fossil fuel interests.

The sceptics are so few that you can actually name many of them:

The poster boy is undoubtedly Lindzen, who is a respected scientist, but who "charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC", according to Ross Gelbspan in 1995. (see Exxon Secrets)

The next two you seem to see are Singer (S. Frederick) and Seitz (Frederick), who are both old and corrupt enough to have been telling people in the 50s that science denies that smoking is bad for them. They're doing the same thing now in their old age, except the victim is not just the gullible themselves ... it's the whole world.