Global Warming – expert calls for truce/honesty???

[Jack]

Article in the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece?&EMC-Bltn=99KCH2F)


The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser. Sounds like a plan.

In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?” I thought peer review was an important part of what the scientific community was all about? Sounds like Prof Jones has invested too much of his life and reputation to consider he may be wrong, sounds a bit of a megalomaniac to me!


Blowing hot and cold

Glaciers

The IPCC says its statement on melting glaciers was based on a report it misquoted by WWF, a lobby group, which took its information from a report in New Scientist based on an interview with a glaciologist who claims he was misquoted. Most glaciologists say that the Himalayan glaciers are so thick that they would take hundreds of years to melt

Sea levels

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says sea levels could rise by 6ft by 2100, a prediction based on the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001, which it attributed to a 0.7C rise in temperatures. It assumed a rise of 6.4C by 2100 would melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

UK Climate Projections, published last year by the Government, predicted a rise of one to two feet by 2095

Arctic sea ice

Cambridge University’s Polar Ocean Physics Group has claimed that sea ice will have disappeared from the North Pole in summer by 2020. However, in the past two summers the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has grown substantially

Global temperatures

The Met Office predicts that this year is “more likely than not” to be the world’s warmest year on record. It claims the El Niño effect will join forces with the warming effect of manmade greenhouse gases.

Some scientists say that there is a warming bias in Met Office long-range forecasts which has resulted in it regularly overstating the warming trend.

See, these are examples of why, unless part 1 pans out and folk start being honest, there will always be folk like me who are skeptical and/or cynical about the whole global warming thing. Folk clutching at misquotes and puting them forward as fact. You have folk whose whole scientific life has wrapped up in it and now has to be right or his whole life will have been ‘wasted’, how can his work be trusted if he wont let anyone see what he’s been up to, to endorse or question his work? (BTW I invented a cure for AIDS last night, you'll just have to believe me.)

For those that come on here and say ‘Well global warming is happening, you cannot possibly question that.’ When Professor Beddington condemns scientists who are refusing to publish the data underpinning their reports I have every right to question if global warming is happening.

Why wont they publish the data, surely it must be watertight for them to make the claims they do? Particularly when the impact on our lives is so huge, in making huge sacrifices for something that will not happen or making huge sacrifices to ensure future generations have a planet to live on.

Global warming should be in Greggs :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Why wont they publish the data, surely it must be watertight for them to make the claims they do? Particularly when the impact on our lives is so huge, in making huge sacrifices for something that will not happen or making huge sacrifices to ensure future generations have a planet to live on.

Global warming should be in Greggs :agree:[/QUOTE]

I can empathise with all that you say, but cannot agree with the last bit.

I don't consider that recycling, or changing my travel habits, or encouraging the use of alternative energy sources to be "huge sacrifices". If the whole global warming thing does turn out to have been a false alarm... and, it is a BIG "if" that won't be apparent for at least a generation... then by that time the changes in our living habits (as I mentioned above) will be the norm and can only be for the good, climate change or not.

[RyeSloan]

Why wont they publish the data, surely it must be watertight for them to make the claims they do? Particularly when the impact on our lives is so huge, in making huge sacrifices for something that will not happen or making huge sacrifices to ensure future generations have a planet to live on.

Global warming should be in Greggs :agree:

I can empathise with all that you say, but cannot agree with the last bit.

I don't consider that recycling, or changing my travel habits, or encouraging the use of alternative energy sources to be "huge sacrifices". If the whole global warming thing does turn out to have been a false alarm... and, it is a BIG "if" that won't be apparent for at least a generation... then by that time the changes in our living habits (as I mentioned above) will be the norm and can only be for the good, climate change or not.[/QUOTE]


And that's the rub...to often the Green lobby have used Climate Change as a weapon against people, telling them they must accept tough choices and huge sacrafices. Far too often this was to promote their own agendas and not actually looking at the bigger picture.

Yet the truth is that we can produce green energy if we want to, drive down pollution through more efficent fuels and transport, vastly increase recycling and build greener homes without having to make a tough choice or a huge sacrafice at all.

The fact are that Governements and regulators have simply failed to make it economically viable enough to encourage business to invest to provide these...look at California for example, one of the worlds biggest economies but they have had no increase in Electricity usage for 20 years. This has saved them buidling multiple power stations. How was this acheved? Simply by legislating on product energy efficiency, already California has identifed flat screen TV's as too power hungry and introduced legislation to enforce them to be more 'green'....the result? Makers like Samsung have managed to half the power usage in their TV's in a very short space of time.

So instead of using scare tactics and threatening people with hard choices it would be much more sensible to put forward constuctive and productive ideas on how to legislate 'greeness' into our consumables and how best to move all markets towards this.

Just a thought....as and when we get virtually pollution free cars (not that far away) will we be able to build roads again without massive protests from he green lobby or will they find another reason to stop progress and stifle our economy to suit their own view of how they want the world??

[Leicester Fan]

I'd be happy if they admitted that global warming is only a theory and not proclaim it as absolute fact.

There are lots of good reasons to recycle and reduce fuel use that have nothing to do with global warming. People might be more inclined to cooperate if they didn't feel they were being lied to.

[CropleyWasGod]

[QUOTE=SiMar;2323560]

And that's the rub...to often the Green lobby have used Climate Change as a weapon against people, telling them they must accept tough choices and huge sacrafices. Far too often this was to promote their own agendas and not actually looking at the bigger picture.

QUOTE]

What, would you say, are "their own agendas"?

[Jack]

I can empathise with all that you say, but cannot agree with the last bit.

I don't consider that recycling, or changing my travel habits, or encouraging the use of alternative energy sources to be "huge sacrifices". If the whole global warming thing does turn out to have been a false alarm... and, it is a BIG "if" that won't be apparent for at least a generation... then by that time the changes in our living habits (as I mentioned above) will be the norm and can only be for the good, climate change or not.

I totally agree with what you’ve said and SiMar, and can honestly say I have been doing my bit for the environment - recycling, use less energy etc since the late 1980s when I was introduced to it all by a German girlfriend, she was really into it :wink:. So probably been at it more than most :greengrin. OK I had a blow out with a big powerful car for a wee while but my carbon footprint has always been negligible.

Anyway, while all that makes good sense and doesn’t really need to impact on our daily lives we are already being hit with direct and indirect taxes that are costing us money and affecting our choices; the staggered Road Tax; carbon taxes; flying taxes and all the others.

If the environmental Stazi got their way, and in the worst case global warming scenario they should, we’d technologically be back in the dark ages just about for the sake of future generations, taking tips from the Amish.

If there is no [man made] global warming, yes lets be prudent with the planets assets, but lets get on with our lives without fear and the false burden of something that’s not going to happen.

Honesty and openness all round please.

[IndieHibby]

The power of persuasion, as exemplified by the use of the media by interest groups (I include the Government/politicians) against the 'general' public or sceptics, can be measured by the number of scientifically literate (Bachelors and Postgraduate qualified) people who, when presented with the notion that the argument of AGM may be
a) not proven
b) a convenient vehicle with which said interest groups can further personal/vested interests,
respond with looks of vexation and disbelief, usually accompanied with comments such as "how can you deny it is so?", "the evidence is overwhelming"........:blah::blah::blah:

The power of persuasion and, indeed, confirmation bias (which I am happy to concede may also affect my own position) has been no better taught to me than through this 'issue'.

As far as my limited knowledge of this goes:
1) Computer models are a poor tool for making these kind of long-term forecasts
2) Other factors (sunspot activity, fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field, variations in the heat-sink capacity of the seas etc, water vapour etc) may have equal or greater influence of climate
3) the idea of regression to the mean, when applied to absolute long-term temperature records, suggest that the natural future of global temperatures is an increase
4) Data has been cherry picked, manipulated, withheld (see recent 'email scandal')
5) Russian officials have stated that the data drawn from Siberian probes only accounts for 40% of total data collected and includes the highest 40% of readings (more than likely suiting their own vision of a gas/oil guzzling future)
6) the scientific debate now surrounds the nature of whether the interaction between CO2 and temperature is characterised by either positive or negative feedbacks
7) The number of ACTUAL scientists who have/do contribute meaningfully to this research is actually far smaller than the media consensus would have us believe

Please feel free to educate me about my conclusions :greengrin

[Woody1985]

Without going off on too much of a tangent (:greengrin), I watched some of Piers Morgan on Las Vegas last night and one of the directors (IIRC) from the South Nevade water boards reckons that if the water continues to dry up at it's current rate it will reach critical levels within the next 8/9 years.

The water levels have dropped 120 feet in the last decade (you can visably see where the water mark on th the stone used to exist). If it drops at that same rate in the next decade the dam will stop generating enough electricity for Vegas to exist.

She was adamant that GW was a key factor. As it was only a snippet of the show I don't know what further evidence she has.

However, it would seem that if you want to get to Vegas at some point you better make it soon!

[Leicester Fan]

Without going off on too much of a tangent (:greengrin), I watched some of Piers Morgan on Las Vegas last night and one of the directors (IIRC) from the South Nevade water boards reckons that if the water continues to dry up at it's current rate it will reach critical levels within the next 8/9 years.

The water levels have dropped 120 feet in the last decade (you can visably see where the water mark on th the stone used to exist). If it drops at that same rate in the next decade the dam will stop generating enough electricity for Vegas to exist.

She was adamant that GW was a key factor. As it was only a snippet of the show I don't know what further evidence she has.

However, it would seem that if you want to get to Vegas at some point you better make it soon!

There has also been a large increase in the population of that area and on top of that large areas of deserts are being irrigated to grow food leading to an increase in water usage.

[ancient hibee]

[QUOTE=SiMar;2323560]

And that's the rub...to often the Green lobby have used Climate Change as a weapon against people, telling them they must accept tough choices and huge sacrafices. Far too often this was to promote their own agendas and not actually looking at the bigger picture.

QUOTE]

What, would you say, are "their own agendas"?
How about £zillions in research grants and jobs?

[--------]

Global Warming – expert calls for truce/honesty???
Article in the Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7003622.ece?&EMC-Bltn=99KCH2F)


Quote:
The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
Sounds like a plan.


Quote:
In response to one request for data Professor Jones wrote: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”
I thought peer review was an important part of what the scientific community was all about? Sounds like Prof Jones has invested too much of his life and reputation to consider he may be wrong, sounds a bit of a megalomaniac to me!



Quote:
Blowing hot and cold

Glaciers

The IPCC says its statement on melting glaciers was based on a report it misquoted by WWF, a lobby group, which took its information from a report in New Scientist based on an interview with a glaciologist who claims he was misquoted. Most glaciologists say that the Himalayan glaciers are so thick that they would take hundreds of years to melt

Sea levels

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says sea levels could rise by 6ft by 2100, a prediction based on the 7in rise in sea levels from 1881-2001, which it attributed to a 0.7C rise in temperatures. It assumed a rise of 6.4C by 2100 would melt the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets.

UK Climate Projections, published last year by the Government, predicted a rise of one to two feet by 2095

Arctic sea ice

Cambridge University’s Polar Ocean Physics Group has claimed that sea ice will have disappeared from the North Pole in summer by 2020. However, in the past two summers the total area of sea ice in the Arctic has grown substantially

Global temperatures

The Met Office predicts that this year is “more likely than not” to be the world’s warmest year on record. It claims the El Niño effect will join forces with the warming effect of manmade greenhouse gases.

Some scientists say that there is a warming bias in Met Office long-range forecasts which has resulted in it regularly overstating the warming trend.
See, these are examples of why, unless part 1 pans out and folk start being honest, there will always be folk like me who are skeptical and/or cynical about the whole global warming thing. Folk clutching at misquotes and puting them forward as fact. You have folk whose whole scientific life has wrapped up in it and now has to be right or his whole life will have been ‘wasted’, how can his work be trusted if he wont let anyone see what he’s been up to, to endorse or question his work? (BTW I invented a cure for AIDS last night, you'll just have to believe me.)

For those that come on here and say ‘Well global warming is happening, you cannot possibly question that.’ When Professor Beddington condemns scientists who are refusing to publish the data underpinning their reports I have every right to question if global warming is happening.

Why wont they publish the data, surely it must be watertight for them to make the claims they do? Particularly when the impact on our lives is so huge, in making huge sacrifices for something that will not happen or making huge sacrifices to ensure future generations have a planet to live on.

Global warming should be in Greggs :agree: :agree:


Bedington is saying what a whole lot of people have been saying for a very long time.

There's a huge area of uncertainty in the field of environmental studies, not least because reliable records have been available in many parts of the world only since the mid-20th century, and 50-60 years simply isn't long enough to track trends accurately or definitively. In climatic or environmental terms, 50-60 years is the blink of an eye.

Then, of course, there are vested interests. It's very easy to accuse someone who questions the reality of global warming of 'being in the pocket of the oil industry'.

But in my lifetime a new industry has grown up - the environmental industry. Lots and lots of academics now make a very good living as professional whistle-blowers on environmental change.

There's a huge amount of money available in terms of scholarships, grants, book sales, conference attendance and so on. Professor Jones is a good example - his Chair as Director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit wouldn't have existed 50 years ago, and he might very well have had to go out to work for a living. No wonder he resists submitting his Unit's work to peer assessment - his livelihood depends on the rest of us being in a state of alarm about the environment.

And THAT is, IMO, very much a vested interest.

The late Michael Crichton used his science fiction to question the doctrinaire attitudes of both environmentalists and their opponents. In A State of Fear he questioned the motivation and honesty of the eco-lobby, and came under fierce attack from US scientists and politicians for doing so. Especially notable among the politicians were Al Gore - who later issued a DVD containing a number of blatant misrepresentations in regard to the alleged process of global warming - and Hilary Rodham Clinton.

Oddly, there was a minority of reputable scientific authorities prepared to swim against the current and back Crichton, which suggests to me that there was more than a degree of truth in what he was saying.

While I don't agree with everything Crichton says in that or any other of his novels, my view is roughly the same as Crichton's as he expressed it in Appendix 1 to A State of Fear.

Science, properly applied, teaches us what we need to know to live productively and prosperously on this planet for as long as the planet continues to exist.

Science has brought huge benefits to humankind - I wouldn't like to be without the laptop I'm using right now, or my car, or my mobile phone. And I'm very grateful for the fact that if I have a heart attack tonight, modern medicine is much more likely to save my life than it would have been if I had had the same heart attack 50 years ago.

But when science is politicised - as environmental studies have been to a huge extent - then we have a problem. Politicised science was behind the theory and practice of eugenics, which gave birth to the Holocaust, and politicised science was behind the agronomist theories of Lysenko which killed millions in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist era. In both cases, the 'science' was misguided and false, and many of the scientists knew it was misguided and false, but they went along with it, and the result in both cases was a terrible evil.

Crichton cites both examples in A State of Fear, and suggests, quite reasonably IMO, that unless we strive for real openness and honesty in the field of environmental studies - get rid of the scare-mongering and the self-righteousness and the obscurantism of so many of the greens, and challenge the complacency and narrow-mindedness of those who would stop all ecological research entirely - we're going to end deep in the brwon stuff, possibly without a shovel to dig ourselves out.

It makes sense to husband the earth's resources as best we can. It makes sense to scrutinise industrial practice and its effects on the environment. It makes sense to co-ordinate industrial development and agriculture and forestry and so on to protect the natural environment as far as possible. Clean water, clean air, plentiful food for all and a sustainable and non-exploitative economic system are all desirable; my problem is that I'm very far from convinced that the politicians and scientists preaching 'green' policies actually have any of that in mind.

I'm more inclined to think that like most other folks in the world, they each have an agenda, and they're all out for themselves.

But then everyone in the world has an agenda - except me.... :wink:

[Woody1985]

There has also been a large increase in the population of that area and on top of that large areas of deserts are being irrigated to grow food leading to an increase in water usage.

She mentioned there was a population of 2 million but I'm not sure how close that is to the dam.

She did mention that the dam provides 90% of the water and only 2/3% of that is used on the Vegas strip so it must be getting used up somewhere / declining supply into the dam. She seemed to think the latter was to blame.

Although maybe her job would be in trouble if the water supply is being mismanaged!

[hibbytam]

Climate change is a historical fact, and a future inevitability. There are countess examples of this, medieval ports that are now miles inland, civilisations based in the middle of the sahara. The entire history of the human race has developed and reacted to the impacts of climate change.

The questionable part comes with our impact on it. My personal opinion is that we are partially responsible for it. It's partly based on the levels of burning that we're doing. I think it's about impossible for it NOT to have an effect on the balance of the planet. Quite to what extent this impact is i'm not sure.

[--------]

There has also been a large increase in the population of that area and on top of that large areas of deserts are being irrigated to grow food leading to an increase in water usage.



:agree: Not a lot of water, Las Vegas with all its hotels and casinos and fountains swimming-pools and stuff, a rapidly growing population, and the demand for water for irrigation....

In the Nevada desert.

No need to cite GW there, I fancy. Plenty of more obvious causes. :rolleyes:


Edit: I assume that Las Vegas doesn't have any broken water mains or stuff?

[IndieHibby]

Climate change is a historical fact, and a future inevitability. There are countess examples of this, medieval ports that are now miles inland, civilisations based in the middle of the sahara. The entire history of the human race has developed and reacted to the impacts of climate change.

The questionable part comes with our impact on it. My personal opinion is that we are partially responsible for it. It's partly based on the levels of burning that we're doing. I think it's about impossible for it NOT to have an effect on the balance of the planet. Quite to what extent this impact is i'm not sure.

Why?

"Quite to what extent this impact is i'm not sure" - The 64 trillion dollar question!

[--------]

Climate change is a historical fact, and a future inevitability. There are countess examples of this, medieval ports that are now miles inland, civilisations based in the middle of the sahara. The entire history of the human race has developed and reacted to the impacts of climate change.

The questionable part comes with our impact on it. My personal opinion is that we are partially responsible for it. It's partly based on the levels of burning that we're doing. I think it's about impossible for it NOT to have an effect on the balance of the planet. Quite to what extent this impact is i'm not sure.


And strangely enough, life went on.... :rolleyes:

[Sylar]

:agree: Not a lot of water, Las Vegas with all its hotels and casinos and fountains swimming-pools and stuff, a rapidly growing population, and the demand for water for irrigation....

In the Nevada desert.

No need to cite GW there, I fancy. Plenty of more obvious causes. :rolleyes:


Edit: I assume that Las Vegas doesn't have any broken water mains or stuff?

Big business on the West Coast just now. Water desalinisation plants are the only way forward for the cities in and around the Nevada desert, as sourcing from the Colorado and it's tributaries and storage lakes is simply not a sustainable option.

Lake Mono is one such example, where water has been re-routed so extensively, that the salinity of the lake basin has reached critical levels, resulting in the almost eradication of any aqua-culture within it. You have to wonder, when an entire ecosystem, such as this one example can be wiped away, to ensure that the Bellagio fountains continue to dance to the music.

As for the climate change discussion, well, I think most know my stance by now.

[barcahibs]

I'm hugely sceptical about the whole AGW issue. As others have said climate change is a natural part of the Earth's life cycle. The Earth and its atmosphere is a 5 billion year old system on a vast scale, IMO its the ultimate in Human arrogance to declare on the basis of 50 or so years of vaguely accurate temperature/co2 levels that we have the ability to alter it on any sort of scale. The Earth MAY be warming, or it may not be, either way we should just accept that and move on, some sort of artificial 'steady state' where things are kept forever as they are now is just not an option.
A thousand or so years ago European temperatures were much warmer than they are now, a few hundred years ago they were much colder. People (and polar bears) survived both states and everything in between.

I had this discussion with a couple of friends a few nights ago, one of whom produced Hurricane Katrina as irrefutable proof of global warming - because of course there were never storms in the past. The Spanish Armada just got distracted by the Calais hypermarkets.

Thats not his fault of course, he's not a scientist or a historian, but it is the fault of the various media and climate groups who sell that sort of information as truth. Unfortunately it's a sad element of modern life that the lure of research grants and booksales is now undermining our trust in the very scientific groups that we should be relying on to cut through the flannel and give us the facts. A truce between the various lobbies and open and free exchange of data is an absolute must now.

In addition (and only IMO) we should be slashing our spending on attempts to prevent global warming and refocussing it on mitigating genuine manmade environmental catastrophes. As a random, and possibly unworkable, example instead of wringing our hands about sea level rises in the Pacific drowning atoll communities and talk of refugees and resettlement we could finance programmes to reduce the land thats being lost to sea front hotels and the erosion caused by uncontrolled tourism and resource extraction. We could be conserving natural waterbreaks like coral reefs and protecting them from overfishing rather than allowing their exploitation and attempting to replace their effect with sea walls etc.

In our very own backyard there are countless environmental projects that could desperately use the resources we currently expend on GW. The Scottish wildcat, a species of mammal thats unique to Scotland is on the verge of extinction, down to perhaps 400 individuals. An animal that has survived in this country alongside us for perhaps 2 million years is going to go extinct, lost forever, in the next couple of decades. With a fraction of the resources spent on GW we could fund public education campaigns, free neutering schemes for domestic cats and compensation for sporting estates to discourage indiscriminate trappping. The Capercaillie population is in a similiar dire strait, Red Squirrels are in retreat everywhere, Salmon are disappearing from our rivers and cod from our seas... the list goes on. We could plant forests, fund research, encourage farmers to maintain wildlife friendly land, clean our rivers and beaches, pay fishermen to reduce their catches...

I was on a beach in Fife last year enjoying a walk along the Fife Coastal trail. The beach was magnificent, a vast expanse of sand - in fact with a wee bit (ok, a lot) of GW we could be selling it as a holiday paradise :greengrin - and it was a really pleasant way of spending an afternoon. Until that is I crossed a litter choked river and was hit by the stench and (the sight) of the, presumably raw, sewage which was being pumped into the bay by the local caravan park. Just round the corner, away from the smell, were several groups of young kids happily searching through rock pools and making sand castles. Its a sight I've visited regularly for many years and IMO the fall in seal populations along that stretch of coast is very evident. The nearby forest was once a reliable spot to see red squirrels, now its getting hard to pick them out amongst the piles of rubbish strewn though the trees.

IMO these are the sort of environmental projects that could desperately use the resources that are currently being pumped into the King Canute like attempt to hold back the temperature. Instead we're digging up irreplaceable peat bogs to plant eagle killing, unreliable windfarms and building 200ft high power lines through the Highlands to access this 'clean' energy.

Rant over :grr: :greengrin

All just IMO and completely unscientific of course but nice to have a rant about, I'm turning into a grumpy old man :greengrin I'd also like to point out that some of my feelings are fuelled by resentment of future generations, why the hell should I be conserving resources for them? What have they ever done for me thats what I want to know. And they'll only go and squander all the resources I've saved for them on hover boots and suchlike. If I don't get to have hover boots I don't see why they should. :agree:

[lapsedhibee]

I'm hugely sceptical about the whole AGW issue. As others have said climate change is a natural part of the Earth's life cycle. The Earth and its atmosphere is a 5 billion year old system on a vast scale, IMO its the ultimate in Human arrogance to declare on the basis of 50 or so years of vaguely accurate temperature/co2 levels that we have the ability to alter it on any sort of scale. The Earth MAY be warming, or it may not be, either way we should just accept that and move on, some sort of artificial 'steady state' where things are kept forever as they are now is just not an option.

In our very own backyard there are countless environmental projects that could desperately use the resources we currently expend on GW. The Scottish wildcat, a species of mammal thats unique to Scotland is on the verge of extinction, down to perhaps 400 individuals. An animal that has survived in this country alongside us for perhaps 2 million years is going to go extinct, lost forever, in the next couple of decades. With a fraction of the resources spent on GW we could fund public education campaigns, free neutering schemes for domestic cats and compensation for sporting estates to discourage indiscriminate trappping. The Capercaillie population is in a similiar dire strait, Red Squirrels are in retreat everywhere, Salmon are disappearing from our rivers and cod from our seas... the list goes on. We could plant forests, fund research, encourage farmers to maintain wildlife friendly land, clean our rivers and beaches, pay fishermen to reduce their catches...


You don't think it's sensible to try to hold back climate change which has been going on for billions of years, but you want to hold back evolution (including the extinction of animal species) which has been going on for the same length of time? Why the discrimination? :dunno:

[Jack]

You don't think it's sensible to try to hold back climate change which has been going on for billions of years, but you want to hold back evolution (including the extinction of animal species) which has been going on for the same length of time? Why the discrimination? :dunno:

Now that’s where mankind has been a naughty boy and where mankind could make a difference.

Mankind’s encroachment (and that of other predatory species more often than not introduced by man on his travels, like rats) on the habitats and wellbeing of these animals is why they are going down the tubes not some sort of evolution.

I’d be all for doing what could be done and trying a bit harder to protect these species from being nothing other than museum pieces.

I would actually like to see a series of ‘Jurassic Park’ type islands. There's already the Galapagos Islands and something like this in New Zealand (one of our Antipodean Hibbies might help with the name) where all human contact is well governed and the fragile wildlife allowed to get on with it.

Doing Rockall would not only be negligent but just plain wrong.

[lapsedhibee]

Mankind’s encroachment (and that of other predatory species more often than not introduced by man on his travels, like rats) on the habitats and wellbeing of these animals is why they are going down the tubes not some sort of evolution

How do you get that man's encroachment on the habitats of other wildlife is not part of evolution? :confused:

[barcahibs]

You don't think it's sensible to try to hold back climate change which has been going on for billions of years, but you want to hold back evolution (including the extinction of animal species) which has been going on for the same length of time? Why the discrimination? :dunno:

Partly of course its human nature - Other peoples pet projects and beliefs get seemingly unlimited funding cos they're gw related whilst things i'm passionate about are getting ignored. I'm jealous :) the scottish wildcat is a perfect example of this we're sleepwalking towards whe extinction of a unique and beautiful animal and we can't seem to be bothered to stop it -although there has been some action over the last couple of years. Meanwhile everyone is wringing their hands over gw's possible effect on polar bears which are actually in much less danger.

Beyond that i think the major reason is that i don't believe gw is caused by humans nor that we can realistically prevent temperature changes.
I DO believe that many animal extinctions are our direct fault and that we can prevent them. The wildcat is not going extinct because it is unfit for its purpose it is going extinct because we have driven it from its habitat, cut down its forests, hunted it for sport and for money, been irresponsible with our pets and are still encroaching further and further into its last strongholds.
You probably do have an argument there with the red squirrel - it is being out competed naturally, albeit by an animal we have introduced, maybe we should let it go. I would however be very much in favour of the idea suggested above of creating island strongholds for it and others. But then i'm biased, i like red squirrels :)

I guess what i'm in favour of is local environmentalism. Sorting out our own problems first on a scale where we can actually make a difference.
Just my view and apologies to the thread starter as its way off topic

[Petrie's Tache]

I'm hugely sceptical about the whole AGW issue. As others have said climate change is a natural part of the Earth's life cycle. The Earth and its atmosphere is a 5 billion year old system on a vast scale, IMO its the ultimate in Human arrogance to declare on the basis of 50 or so years of vaguely accurate temperature/co2 levels that we have the ability to alter it on any sort of scale. The Earth MAY be warming, or it may not be, either way we should just accept that and move on, some sort of artificial 'steady state' where things are kept forever as they are now is just not an option.
A thousand or so years ago European temperatures were much warmer than they are now, a few hundred years ago they were much colder. People (and polar bears) survived both states and everything in between.

I had this discussion with a couple of friends a few nights ago, one of whom produced Hurricane Katrina as irrefutable proof of global warming - because of course there were never storms in the past. The Spanish Armada just got distracted by the Calais hypermarkets.

Thats not his fault of course, he's not a scientist or a historian, but it is the fault of the various media and climate groups who sell that sort of information as truth. Unfortunately it's a sad element of modern life that the lure of research grants and booksales is now undermining our trust in the very scientific groups that we should be relying on to cut through the flannel and give us the facts. A truce between the various lobbies and open and free exchange of data is an absolute must now.

In addition (and only IMO) we should be slashing our spending on attempts to prevent global warming and refocussing it on mitigating genuine manmade environmental catastrophes. As a random, and possibly unworkable, example instead of wringing our hands about sea level rises in the Pacific drowning atoll communities and talk of refugees and resettlement we could finance programmes to reduce the land thats being lost to sea front hotels and the erosion caused by uncontrolled tourism and resource extraction. We could be conserving natural waterbreaks like coral reefs and protecting them from overfishing rather than allowing their exploitation and attempting to replace their effect with sea walls etc.

In our very own backyard there are countless environmental projects that could desperately use the resources we currently expend on GW. The Scottish wildcat, a species of mammal thats unique to Scotland is on the verge of extinction, down to perhaps 400 individuals. An animal that has survived in this country alongside us for perhaps 2 million years is going to go extinct, lost forever, in the next couple of decades. With a fraction of the resources spent on GW we could fund public education campaigns, free neutering schemes for domestic cats and compensation for sporting estates to discourage indiscriminate trappping. The Capercaillie population is in a similiar dire strait, Red Squirrels are in retreat everywhere, Salmon are disappearing from our rivers and cod from our seas... the list goes on. We could plant forests, fund research, encourage farmers to maintain wildlife friendly land, clean our rivers and beaches, pay fishermen to reduce their catches...

I was on a beach in Fife last year enjoying a walk along the Fife Coastal trail. The beach was magnificent, a vast expanse of sand - in fact with a wee bit (ok, a lot) of GW we could be selling it as a holiday paradise :greengrin - and it was a really pleasant way of spending an afternoon. Until that is I crossed a litter choked river and was hit by the stench and (the sight) of the, presumably raw, sewage which was being pumped into the bay by the local caravan park. Just round the corner, away from the smell, were several groups of young kids happily searching through rock pools and making sand castles. Its a sight I've visited regularly for many years and IMO the fall in seal populations along that stretch of coast is very evident. The nearby forest was once a reliable spot to see red squirrels, now its getting hard to pick them out amongst the piles of rubbish strewn though the trees.

IMO these are the sort of environmental projects that could desperately use the resources that are currently being pumped into the King Canute like attempt to hold back the temperature. Instead we're digging up irreplaceable peat bogs to plant eagle killing, unreliable windfarms and building 200ft high power lines through the Highlands to access this 'clean' energy.

Rant over :grr: :greengrin

All just IMO and completely unscientific of course but nice to have a rant about, I'm turning into a grumpy old man :greengrin I'd also like to point out that some of my feelings are fuelled by resentment of future generations, why the hell should I be conserving resources for them? What have they ever done for me thats what I want to know. And they'll only go and squander all the resources I've saved for them on hover boots and suchlike. If I don't get to have hover boots I don't see why they should. :agree:


Partly of course its human nature - Other peoples pet projects and beliefs get seemingly unlimited funding cos they're gw related whilst things i'm passionate about are getting ignored. I'm jealous :) the scottish wildcat is a perfect example of this we're sleepwalking towards whe extinction of a unique and beautiful animal and we can't seem to be bothered to stop it -although there has been some action over the last couple of years. Meanwhile everyone is wringing their hands over gw's possible effect on polar bears which are actually in much less danger.

Beyond that i think the major reason is that i don't believe gw is caused by humans nor that we can realistically prevent temperature changes.
I DO believe that many animal extinctions are our direct fault and that we can prevent them. The wildcat is not going extinct because it is unfit for its purpose it is going extinct because we have driven it from its habitat, cut down its forests, hunted it for sport and for money, been irresponsible with our pets and are still encroaching further and further into its last strongholds.
You probably do have an argument there with the red squirrel - it is being out competed naturally, albeit by an animal we have introduced, maybe we should let it go. I would however be very much in favour of the idea suggested above of creating island strongholds for it and others. But then i'm biased, i like red squirrels :)

I guess what i'm in favour of is local environmentalism. Sorting out our own problems first on a scale where we can actually make a difference.
Just my view and apologies to the thread starter as its way off topic


You got shares in wildcats?:greengrin

[barcahibs]

You got shares in wildcats?:greengrin

I've got 3 dozen in boxes in the back garden, I'm trying to talk them up so I get a good price. :greengrin They don't half keep the pigeons off your lawn.

Nah I've just always been into wildcats and they're really in trouble these days, anyone else interested, www.scottishwildcats.co.uk is a good place to start. :greengrin