[SkepticSam]

What I think people need to know, and what the press just can't get right is that there is a difference between a changing climate and (AGW) climate change.

I am all for a nice neat green option, but please don't shove it down my throat with the threat of fines if I don't recycle enough of my household waste.
Don't tell me that we only have 5 years (less than that now) before we reach the tipping point of no return.
Don't show me pictures of ice sheets collapsing and tell me that we can stop this and even maybe reverse it if we cut down on fossil fuel usage.
Don't tell me that we need to get back to CO2 levels of 1990, like it's a magical number whilst giving the air industry longer to reach their level of emissions.
Don't tell me that all disasters :Katrina: LA Fires: Hurricane Activity: Tornado activity and so on are all a result of climate change.

There is far too much that we still don't know. It's only recently that we figured out El Nino and La nina plus other oceanic movements.

Even at this stage we can not say with any certainty that any event is a result of climate change. Why is it that when one region has a statistically cooler yearly temperature that it's just a statistical anomaly and within the range of variation. Yet when the next year there is a warming event it is a result of climate change?

We need honesty, and unfortunately most people get their information from the "popular press". They are well known for publishing half truths or variations to suit the own thinking or that of their readership.

I know that Al Gore, Heidi Cullen and James Hanson, to mention just a few, have been invited to a friendly set of climate discussions and engage in open debate with so called skeptics. They have refused at every invitation. Why?

"What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?"

We just don't know, but lets not kid ourself that all we need do is "Act on CO2". It's just not that simple.
Take in to account how we have changed the local and global environment by deforestation and covering the area with concrete and tarmac. Our use of domesticated cattle. The way we have changed the course of waterways and our use of dams. Diverting water to deserts (Las Vegas for example) and depriving the areas up stream or up pipe of the water they should have.
And that's just for starters.

And at the end of the day, those that say climate change is mans fault are in a no lose situation. AGW turns out not to be a factor/happening. Well that's because of the action taken as a result of the data presented by climate scientists reversed the situation. AGW is real and we end up screwed, see told you so.

Here are a few links: Nothing heavy or full of science but it may, just may, make you think.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/jun/22/greg-craven-climate-change
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/capitalweathergang/2009/09/a_skeptical_perspective_on_glo.html
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2009/09/the_more_i_study_climate_science_the_more_confused.html
http://www.accuweather.com/video-on-demand.asp?video=37129475001&channel=VBLOG_BASTARDI&title=Debunking%20Global%20Warming%20%20in%20California's%20Wildfires

At the end of the day all most people can do is read and learn. THis should be encouraged, but read from both sides or the argument and don't be fooled by statements that attribute one event or one yearly set of records to AGW climate change.

[peppercorn]

I am all for a nice neat green option, but please don't shove it down my throat with the threat of fines if I don't recycle enough of my household waste.

I am sorry you equate local government's efforts to enforce recycling policy (in what, I hope, is a fair scheme) with shoving green issues down your throat. Recycling has more to do with good regional-resource management as with fighting global warming.  Also, what is the nice neat green option you are for, if not recycling for example?

Don't tell me that we need to get back to CO2 levels of 1990, like it's a magical number whilst giving the air industry longer to reach their level of emissions.

I agree. Picking an arbitrary year for good CO2 levels is insulting to people.
Yes, it's deplorable to let industries (like air-travel) who can lobby the strongest off the hook.

Don't tell me that all disasters :Katrina: LA Fires: Hurricane Activity: Tornado activity and so on are all a result of climate change.  Even at this stage we can not say with any certainty that any event is a result of climate change. Why is it that when one region has a statistically cooler yearly temperature that it's just a statistical anomaly and within the range of variation.

I don't think anyone here (or, I hope, any politician worth a damn) is trying to claim any of these things. The key point is that there is a finite likelihood of cause and effect (importantly in maths, we can say that the probability of a link is a real number even if the means of calculating it isn't know).  In the case of global climate change there are a number of recognised models which factor in human influences, but none of them claim to be indisputable, just a model of likely outcome.

We need honesty, and unfortunately most people get their information from the "popular press". They are well known for publishing half truths or variations to suit the own thinking or that of their readership.

Again, I agree. If by the "popular press" you mean the tabloids and similarly dumbed down media then the only common motive would seem to be sensationalist reporting (good for punchy headlines) on either side of the argument.

{Al Gore, Heidi Cullen and James Hanson have been invited to climate discussions and engage in open debate with sceptics. They have refused at every invitation. Why?}

Definitely. More rational public debate should be encouraged as a large amount of misconceptions exist of both sides of the argument. I would suspect that a number of valid commentators from both sides have met for public debate over the years, but more needs to be done.

"What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?"
We just don't know, but lets not kid ourself that all we need do is "Act on CO2". It's just not that simple.

Yes - To assume any fixed point of view is potentially dangerous: "Acting on CO2" & switching brain off.  Deciding it's nothing to do with us & switching brain off is even more so.

[SkepticSam]

Peppercorn:
I don't have too much free time to go in to detail in my reply, Sorry for that. But I will come back as and when time permits.

I am sorry you equate local government's efforts to enforce recycling policy (in what, I hope, is a fair scheme) with shoving green issues down your throat. Recycling has more to do with good regional-resource management as with fighting global warming. Also, what is the nice neat green option you are for, if not recycling for example?

Recycling has more to do with local authorities trying to meet governments targets, and governments are trying to meet targets set by Europe. We are not running out of space for landfill, we are running out of licensed landfill sites and space. I have nothing against going green and recycling your household waste but lets start with the manufacurers of what you buy. Do they really need to pack your food with all of that plastic and cardboard? Why do fruit and veg, for example, need all that packaging? And don't mention things like Easter Eggs and other over boxed products. This is where legislation should start.
There is a real danger that there will be a green fatigue and a genuine backlash to being told what we can and can't do, and what action the local, regional and national governments will take against us if we fail to comply.
People mainly react to whats in their pocket. And many people need to see that they are benefitting from the actions forced up on them. Most can not see that the actions they do today will / could benefit their grandchildren. Instead of giving incentives to big industry, why not do little things for the little man? Can we not have a rebate on our council tax or rated depending on the volume by weight that we recycle in our bins?
Then we have the subject of forcing car manufacturers to increase fuel efficency to again save the planet. People don't want to lose their jobs or pay more for their car just because their government tells then what's what. It may seem a cop out but why are these ideas not packaged as a way for "us" to save money. Better fuel efficency means less at the pumps. More nuclear, wind and tidal power will lead to lower energy prices. Not the scare tactics of global warming, much of which is not understood by the public.

I don't think anyone here (or, I hope, any politician worth a damn) is trying to claim any of these things. The key point is that there is a finite likelihood of cause and effect (importantly in maths, we can say that the probability of a link is a real number even if the means of calculating it isn't know). In the case of global climate change there are a number of recognised models which factor in human influences, but none of them claim to be indisputable, just a model of likely outcome.

Unfortunately, these things are being claimed. It was claimed that the wildfires were a result of global warming. Other instances of claims where single events are a result of global warming. Hurricane Katarina it was claimed caused so much devistation to NO due to global warming. Again this was not true.
　

[peppercorn]

We are not running out of space for landfill, we are running out of licensed landfill sites and space. I have nothing against going green and recycling your household waste but lets start with the manufacturers of what you buy. ... Can we not have a rebate on our council tax or rated depending on the volume by weight that we recycle in our bins?

Are you seriously suggesting that we should be increasing the number of licensed landfill sites? That's never going to fly.

"lets start with the manufacturers of what you buy" - An excellent point. Legislation should be radically tightened up on packing, as well as "food miles to market". Also, it seems sad that a whole generation has grown up with most not even knowing that fruit & veg is seasonal.  The days of 'anything you want any time you want' are numbered.

Although in a ideal world, we could have recycling-related rebates (or fines - the old carrot or stick argument) to encourage households.  In reality though, can you imagine the increase in fly tipping?

Better fuel efficiency means less at the pumps. More nuclear, wind and tidal power will lead to lower energy prices. Not the scare tactics of global warming, much of which is not understood by the public.

I think the government are wising up to this thought - Their 'Cut CO2' ads show a father who doesn't really care about 'green', but does care about lower bills!

[peppercorn]

I consider myself an environmentalist.  I am concerned about the amount of pollution we generate, the animals we push to extinction, and the resources we exhaust.  However, I don't believe that we are the driving force behind global warming.  It concerns me that whenever we hear about the effects of global warming, it is always mixed with the message that we are irrevocably destroying the earth.

If our leaders are right about humans being able to counter GW then many less species and habitats will be lost in the long run.


Original question: What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?

It is likely to be, at least a significant amount (say more than half). It is quite likely to be a majority share. Obviously, terms such as likely & quite likely are problematic - especially as the majority of voters will be inclined to look for any doubt if there is an implied cost involved.

[SkepticSam]

Are you seriously suggesting that we should be increasing the number of licensed landfill sites? That's never going to fly.

I never said we should increase the number of landfill sites. I said we are running out of licensend sites. But yes, at some point there will be a need for more landfill sites. If not for domestic refuse then to extend fridge mountain and other waste sites. There may well be a local level stink about it, but as long as it's "not in my back yard" people will live with it.

 ...miles to market". Also, it seems sad that a whole generation has grown up with most not even knowing that fruit & veg is seasonal.  The days of 'anything you want any time you want' are numbered.

Not as long as people want cheap food it not. Miles to market is just a fancy as is locally grown fruit, veg and reared farm produce. There is a small market for these goods but only to those willing to pay the high prices. The reason big supermarkets thrive is because we are poorer in real terms and need to watch the pennies. People want 2 for 1 on their veg and don't care about the farmer, they just want or need cheap food.

Although in a ideal world, we could have recycling-related rebates (or fines - the old carrot or stick argument) to encourage households.  In reality though, can you imagine the increase in fly tipping?

The household waste recycling rebate is easy. If we can already have smart bins that tell the local authority the weight of refuse in our black bins it's easy to do the same for our green bins.

Fly tipping will increase as people are forced to use smaller "friendlier" bins.

Edit: post modified to correct a quote.

[peppercorn]

I never said we should increase the number of landfill sites. ... But yes, at some point [I am saying] there will be a need for more landfill sites.

These two statement contradict each other, don't they?

If not for domestic refuse then to extend fridge mountain ...as long as it's "not in my back yard" people will live with it.

That depends on how many more are needed. People are already moaning about landfills near to their homes. I can't imagine any new site going through without some NIMBY action. Fridges, etc should probably be made the responsibility of the manufactures to recycle -so encouraging more green design in the first place.

Miles to market is just a fancy [term for local produce]. ... The reason big supermarkets thrive is because we are poorer in real terms. ... [People] don't care about the farmer, they just want or need cheap food.

"we are poorer in real terms" - compared to when? Those in work (still the vast majority) are averagely earning about what they were 2 years ago. Yes, utilities & fuel have risen substantially for maybe 5 years, but most wage packets have more or less followed suit. The supermarket monopolies having taken hold since the 80s meant that our bills (for subsistence foods) have been kept low.  Thus, "the days of 'anything you want any time you want' are numbered"(my quote) as consumers are beginning to loose this shot-term luxury.

The household waste recycling rebate is easy. If we can already have smart bins that tell the local authority the weight of refuse in our black bins it's easy to do the same for our green bins. Fly tipping will increase as people are forced to use smaller "friendlier" bins.

It's not a question of ease of implementation, it's what will happen if councils introduce sliding scales of charges - that is many households will put the minimum in the bins, then dump the rest. Short of an Orwellian state where councils know what you bought & thus how much rubbish/recycling you'll produce, packaging waste is only controllable at source - supermarkets, etc. Forcing people to use smaller bins will indeed be encouraging fly-tipping, just as will charging by weight.

[SkepticSam]

Thanks for the reply.

I never said we should increase the number of landfill sites. ... But yes, at some point [I am saying] there will be a need for more landfill sites.

These two statement contradict each other, don't they?

My mistake. It's possibly the way I wrote it but I was trying to say that I didn't think I said we SHOULD increase the number of landfill sites. Although I think we will, at some point, have to.

If not for domestic refuse then to extend fridge mountain ...as long as it's "not in my back yard" people will live with it.

That depends on how many more are needed. People are already moaning about landfills near to their homes. I can't imagine any new site going through without some NIMBY action. Fridges, etc should probably be made the responsibility of the manufactures to recycle -so encouraging more green design in the first place.[/quote]

I don't think we will know how many more are needed until we need them. People moan and vote with their pockets. given the choice of greater fines for too much waste, they will live with more landfill sites. You are correct that the NIMBY action will be there but no matter what the proposal is be it Coal fired powerstation, nuclear powerstations or just landfill there will be a NIMBY action to suit.

Miles to market is just a fancy [term for local produce]. ... The reason big supermarkets thrive is because we are poorer in real terms. ... [People] don't care about the farmer, they just want or need cheap food.

"we are poorer in real terms" - compared to when? Those in work (still the vast majority) are averagely earning about what they were 2 years ago. Yes, utilities & fuel have risen substantially for maybe 5 years, but most wage packets have more or less followed suit. The supermarket monopolies having taken hold since the 80s meant that our bills (for subsistence foods) have been kept low.  Thus, "the days of 'anything you want any time you want' are numbered"(my quote) as consumers are beginning to loose this shot-term luxury.[/quote

Yes utilities and fuel have risen but so have local and government taxation. For the growing number of unemployed or those in minimum wage jobs I believe they are poorer than they were. These are IMO the backbone of the supermarkets policies on low prices and 2 for 1 offers. No supermarket is going to change policies and stop selling cheap food.

The household waste recycling rebate is easy. If we can already have smart bins that tell the local authority the weight of refuse in our black bins it's easy to do the same for our green bins. Fly tipping will increase as people are forced to use smaller "friendlier" bins.

It's not a question of ease of implementation, it's what will happen if councils introduce sliding scales of charges - that is many households will put the minimum in the bins, then dump the rest. Short of an Orwellian state where councils know what you bought & thus how much rubbish/recycling you'll produce, packaging waste is only controllable at source - supermarkets, etc. Forcing people to use smaller bins will indeed be encouraging fly-tipping, just as will charging by weight.

[/quote]

Do we not live in a semiorwellian state already? A sharing of data bases would allow any gov. agency or department to know who much you earn, what you out goings are and what and where you bought anything on your credit or debit card. Not to mention the fact the you are cought on CCTV throughout your day.



Just a thought: it would seem that we have strayed from the initial topic question, would you be happy to continue here or start a new, seperate topic?

[peppercorn]

Just a thought: it would seem that we have strayed from the initial topic question, would you be happy to continue here or start a new, seperate topic?

Sure! We should move it to Just Chat!
What are we calling this new topic?
Maybe-'What's gone wrong with the direction of green policies and green advertising?'

Meanwhile I might try & remember what the original question here was!

[SkepticSam]

Call me mystic meg if you like but trying to have a sensible discussion in just chat can't happen. You will have a few good posts and then it will be lost in thenoise of people posting general chit chat.

[peppercorn]

Call me mystic meg if you like but trying to have a sensible discussion in just chat can't happen. You will have a few good posts and then it will be lost in thenoise of people posting general chit chat.

mmmm, looks like you're right!
   
Is 'being green' being hijacked by policy-makers and advertisers?

[litespeed]

Chris:

Don't waste your time disussing 'human caused' clobal warming. First, Warm is better then cold. Ask the Vikings who got frozen out of Greenland. Second, CO2 has varied from 3000 ppm during dynosaur era to the much lesser levels seen now.  Over that entire span the climate Has swung from Sauna To Ice Age to the moderate climate we have today.

We are very near a climate optimum now. A bit warmer would be a comfort. However, the Carbonista Cult wants to cool things off.  As if they are heading for the North Slope of Alaska to escape the excessive heat of Malibu. 

The dumb son of a bitches.  The cold era after the midieval warming, if I recall my history chronologically, exterminate about one half the entire European population.  But if you live in Malibu, who's counting.

[Bored chemist]

Chris:

Don't waste your time disussing 'human caused' clobal warming. First, Warm is better then cold. Ask the Vikings who got frozen out of Greenland. Second, CO2 has varied from 3000 ppm during dynosaur era to the much lesser levels seen now.  Over that entire span the climate Has swung from Sauna To Ice Age to the moderate climate we have today.

We are very near a climate optimum now. A bit warmer would be a comfort. However, the Carbonista Cult wants to cool things off.  As if they are heading for the North Slope of Alaska to escape the excessive heat of Malibu. 

The dumb son of a bitches.  The cold era after the midieval warming, if I recall my history chronologically, exterminate about one half the entire European population.  But if you live in Malibu, who's counting.

It's always interesting to see someone who can take account of the other person's point of view.
For example I'm particulalr impressed by your concern for people living in places like Bangladesh or Tuvalu. Presumably you count them among "The dumb son of a bitches".

[litespeed]

peppercorn - Christopher Johnson

"What proportion of global warming is attributable to humans?" The question is moot because the earth has been cooling for nearly a decade. Further, sunspot cycle 24 has been sleeping for nearly three years.  If this trend keeps up you will need warmer cloths.

I reference you to the Maunder Minnimum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_Minimum

[yor_on]

Impressive

Let me see. "The only accurate statement that can be provided is "less than we thought it was 10 years ago.""

And  "We cannot SUSTAIN our energy needs or life style without fossil fuels."

And Awh

Sounds like you're building yourself a mutual little circle of 'skepticism' here.

Well, don't let reality disturb you.

And this.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-02-25-warming_N.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/01/21/eco.warmingantarctic/index.html

State of the Climate Global Analysis August 2009
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2009&month=8&submitted=Get+Report

If you're living in the States, check this.
http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/download-the-report

"In the United States, the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 mandates that every four years an assessment of the impacts of global change in the U.S. be conducted by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). Responding to this mandate, the USGCRP carried out during the late 1990s the first National Assessment of the Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change in the United States. Between 2004 and 2009, the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which incorporated the USGCRP, produced a series of 21 Synthesis and Assessment Products(SAPs)."

And all of those reports are actually optimistic
Whether you like them or not, they lean to the optimistic so called 'neutral side' as supported by all scientists but a very select few today.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=25747.msg276353#msg276353

[frethack]

I am thankful that none of my colleagues or professors rely on Youtube, USAToday, or CNN for any of their data and evidence in their climate studies.

NOAA on the other hand is an amazingly useful source for data (I use it daily...in fact, I am downloading from the NCDC paleoclimate database as I type), but the climate report that you posted fails to mention the portion of warming that is anthropogenic.

As far as .gov and .org websites, treat them with a skeptical eye...politics and science do not mix...at all.

[Eric A. Taylor]

Climate change is something that has been going on sense Earth began. To say it is human caused is like saying humans are responsible for the change in seasons.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it? Human greenhouse emotions are insignificant compared to what happens naturally. Earth's climate is not well understood. I think if you look carefully at the claims you'll realize what's going on. It's nothing but anti-American and anti-west propaganda.

[peppercorn]

The question is moot because the earth has been cooling for nearly a decade.

Interesting. Do you have a scientific source to support this?

sunspot cycle 24 has been sleeping for nearly three years.  If this trend keeps up you will need warmer clothes.

I admire your ability to talk about a solar 'trend' of three years, at the same time as dismissing terabytes of scientific data correlating increasing levels of CO2 with climate change.

[peppercorn]

Climate change is something that has been going on sense Earth began. To say it is human caused is like saying humans are responsible for the change in seasons.

No not at all, really!
Here's a SIMPLE analogy for you:
An oak tree that has been growing for seven times my lifetime has been changing naturally over two centuries.  That doesn't stop me getting a chain-saw and chopping it down.
Now imagine six-billion chainsaws!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Where is it?

The claims are neither extraordinary or lacking in evidence. CO2 levels have increased by one quarter in a century and CO2 is undoubtedly a greenhouse gas.  Just what level of proof are you going to settle for?  Of course there are detractors (a very very few of them real scientists!). There always are when the status quo is challenged.

Earth's climate is not well understood.

Our climate is incredibly well understood considering how complex it is.

It's nothing but anti-American and anti-west propaganda.

Eh? When you say anti-west are you aware that the major evidence for GW is being correlated in the 'west'!  A large percentage of it in the US.
If you'd said anti-oil, anti-capitalist or even anti-Republican you may have sounded less paranoid.

[Bored chemist]

Is there any chance that people will stfu about sunspots?
They come and go with a period of about 11 years- we know about that.
Saying that they are a cause of climate change is like saying that night time is a cause of climate change.
The climate needs to be measured over a timescal long enough to average out the efect of things like that or they need to be modeled and taken into account.