What Do We Think About Climate Change

Here's a link to Megan's interview.
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2010/s2845580.htm

I can't find what you assert anywhere in it. Ok, you might have wanted her to say it - your enthusiasm is apparent. But its worth reading the interview objectively, noting what it does say and reflecting on what it doesn't.

Megan's a geologist by background, understands paleoclimate data and was suitably cautious. Go back further than 20my and you will find both higher levels of the gases referred to and, to the extent the data can be resolved, similar rates of change occasionally in the past.

Humans contributing to climate change- yes. At a significant level? Well, I'd realy like to see someone put a percentage figure on our hydrocarbon contribution to the totals that is supported by good data, because at present too many are jumping from contributing to almost 100% cause. And that could lead to governments making very bad decisions on taxes or spending taxes.

 

I was not refering to that article, but to the news here on our, chilean TV. However, the very first sentence may have escaped you:

"Dr Megan Clark has come out in defence of climate scientists and says there's absolutely no doubt there's a link between humans and climate change."

 

you seem to want to go from 'a link' to something well beyond that.

It might seem subtle, but to me 'a link' is still a long way off your assertion. Maybe the translation into Spanish for your news was not accurate, I don't really know.

 

Going back 20my is a bit irrelevant because back then the climate was definitely different, but for entirely different reasons. Calling up that period to make conclusions on our era is a bit naive, you would have to agree.

That is exactly what many are doing here. My good friend Guillermo among them too, despite his MANY informative links. The point that deniers (they may sue me for calling them this, but I like it.) are missing is that, just as in economy, the past performance is NOT the indication of the future trends.

In particular when there's a new factor in play, such as human intervention in environment. ANd we still do not know how seriously has our industrialisation damaged the earth. These effect may have the long term effect that will not be apparent right now.

So to dismiss it as a "conspiracy" is naive. The email fiasco has only uncovered a bunch of donkeys who should be sacked and never again be employed as scientists, or anything else other than street cleaners.

 

Yes, Megan is not saying it specifically in this article, yet they had quoted her so here. WHo know what exactly did she say, but there's little subtle in that sentence. "there's absolutely no doubt". Which part did you find subtle?

Even teh moderate scientist who support the idea of humans influencing current climatic processes, agree that our contribution is significant. The mean annual deforestation rate from 2000 to 2005 (22,392 km2 per year) was 18% higher than in the previous five years (19,018 km2 per year).[33] At the current rate, in two decades the Amazon Rainforest will be reduced by 40%. That is not a "conspiracy". That is capitalist hysteria at its worst. Anything for a dollar. Screw the nature.

And that is just a drop in the ocean. Our multimillion megacities create so much of black waters, it all goes into the oceans. Can't find it right now, but I read recently that a citly of 4 millions creates a river of **** and piss (pardon my english) in a year that matches a flow of Danube in 5 months.

That is a LOt of pollution. Just look at the sattelite picture of the river Po in Italy and how far the brown waters go into the Adriatics.

There's no fish to speak of on Italian side since early 1990's. Croats are in panic because the poisons are now spreading to their side, as are the italian fishermen.

We are screwing this planet slowly, but surely.

 

interview tend to get edited a lot and often the intent of the speaker or the presenter can be muddled by the editing process

I tend to go with papers or articles authored by someone as a far better source for discovering that someones position

when in doubt I check source watch and a few other lists to see who is who

 

Excellent point boston. That is why I went to the site of the organisation and read it first, before I posted what I have heard on the TV. And that is exactly what they had said in their research.

Read all about it here:

http://www.csiro.com.au/science/Changing-Climate.html

A lot of reading, it may take some time to go through all research and conclusions.

Nothing subtle in these articles.

 

I'm still trying to figure out what is that "a link" comment:

Originally Posted by Brian@BNE View Post
you seem to want to go from 'a link' to something well beyond that.

It might seem subtle, but to me 'a link' is still a long way off your assertion. Maybe the translation into Spanish for your news was not accurate, I don't really know.

Maybe you cannot see the quote I copied from the interview?

 

its kinda hard not to admit that the entire rise in co2 is caused by human activity








its also pretty hard to suggest it wont have any ill effects

 

It seems quite obvious that these people in CSIRO, unlike those primadonnas from British Islands involved in their email fiasco, are actually moving their arses and are doing some actual research. They are somewhat hanging on to CO2 as the main contributor, but they do recognise the full set of human activities as a complex and integrated influence over all.

 

ya I have a land use chart around here somewhere
basically humans tend to clear out the forests which act as carbon sinks and spread fertilizers on the farm lands which ends up releasing carbon



so even just our methods of food production creates a big problem
and that doesn't even remotely address the issue of agricultural run off or environmental displacement

what we need is change
problem with initiating change is that the status quo will fight to the death so as not to run the possibility of loosing the almighty buck

 

Despite population growth being the main cause of the problem, no politico has the balls to point it out, or even mention it as a serious problem. Most just go on congratulating mothers for their sixth child. Corporations promote population growth as a source of new consumers , as the ability of the planet to support them goes over a cliff.

 

octuplet mom comes to mind

what a crock and
she is on welfare
perfect eh

 

In the last one hundred years the worlds population has gone from one billion to six...that should start ringing bells in someones ears.....

 

I so hate giving those "points", either negative or positive, but this comment deserves a few. The spear right into the heart of the true what and why.