Question Do you believe the climate is changing?

[Reg Martin]

In the next week thousands of politicians will be flying in to Copenhagen from all over the world to spend a few days telling the rest of us how things like flying are ruining the climate.
e-mails leaked last week suggest that some of the scientists who have convinced politicians that climate change is happening have been rigging the data to get the results they want.
So what is the ShrimperZone verdict on climate change?

 

[BrettieAngell]

A bit of option 1 and a bit of option 2.

 

[osymandus]

Agreeing with BrettieAngel here. Just becuase its not becoming hotter or not confirming to some ideas. 6 Billion humans are making a massive differnce , even if its resources used alone.

 

[shrimperman]

I did this as part of my disertation 4 or 5 years ago. There is a VERY strong correlation between greenhouses gases released into the atmosphere and a rise in temperatre. However, there is nothing conclusive whereas there is conclusive evidence that the earth moves in temperature cycles. Some might remember christmas markets taking place on a frozen Thames. Conversely, there is evidence that areas considered completely unhabitable due to being too cold were inhabited many years ago.

 

[EastStandBlue]

It's a natural cycle, Fact of the matter is we're still in an "Ice Age" and there's enough evidence to suggest that throughout Earth's history it has fluctuated between ice age's several times. There's a damn site more evidence to suggest it's a natural cycle than there is that it's directly due to greenhouse gasses.

We're not helping matters, but it's pretty obvious we're not the direct cause.

 

[canveyshrimper]

Not that many years ago we were told to prepare for another ice age. Now we're being told that polar ice caps are melting and we'll all look like extras from Waterworld in 5 years.

A lot of it is a con for governments to winkle more money out of us for green taxes and cretins like Bono to beat another drum now he's single handedly defeated apart-height and he's fed the world.

 

[osymandus]

I did this as part of my disertation 4 or 5 years ago. There is a VERY strong correlation between greenhouses gases released into the atmosphere and a rise in temperatre. However, there is nothing conclusive whereas there is conclusive evidence that the earth moves in temperature cycles. Some might remember christmas markets taking place on a frozen Thames. Conversely, there is evidence that areas considered completely unhabitable due to being too cold were inhabited many years ago.

From late 1800's to 1950's i think the latest one was ?? (maybe that was a freak one). Unfortunately humanity is doing the piece meal thing , and not looking at it in a holistic sense. Even if its a natural change we still contribute to teh destruction of environments which affect the whole planet.

 

[Slipperduke]

If it was a really serious problem, people would be acting rather differently. For starters, we wouldn't be building a new runway at Heathrow. After all, what kind of government could, with a straight face, demand that we all switch lights off and use less resources, while stamping a giant's carbon footprint down on the south of England?

Also, take the case of Al Gore. A man who missed out on the White House by some 32 votes. Would he have been satisfied just releasing a profile-boosting, ego-trip of a documentary and then following it up by doing **** all of any consequence, bar a few concerts and lots of profile-boosting, ego-trip speaking tours? Of course not. If global warming was really a problem and he really felt passionate about it, he'd have run for President. With all the backing and publicity from Hollywood, as well as the liberal base, would he really have had less chance than John Kerry, a wooden man who subsequently missed out by about 32 votes?

I'm sat here waiting to be convinced, but all I can see are people using it as an excuse for publicity, stealth tax or arbitary local council fines.

 

[Sussex Shrimper]

Option 1.5 for me too. It's real, but man is a contributing factor than a driving one. Even so, my own belief is that it would be negligent of us not to do what we can to give future generations as big a chance as possible.

That's based less on any personal scientific expertise than on support for AGW from 90%+ of qualified, peer reviewed study. Proper science. Obviously it's unhelpful, not to mention unequivocally wrong, when individual scientists undermine the case by allowing their own partisan views to guide their actions, but underneath the media storm it's ultimately a fairly small dent in a pretty strong consensus for me.

In any case, tough measures are going to have to be taken sooner or later over our rapacious consumption of finite resources. I dare say that history will reflect more kindly upon us if we take a hard look at ourselves rather than become the latest generation of buck passers. Après moi, le déluge ain't much of a legacy to leave, IMO.

 

[Hotman]

If it was a really serious problem, people would be acting rather differently. For starters, we wouldn't be building a new runway at Heathrow. After all, what kind of government could, with a straight face, demand that we all switch lights off and use less resources, while stamping a giant's carbon footprint down on the south of England?

Also, take the case of Al Gore. A man who missed out on the White House by some 32 votes. Would he have been satisfied just releasing a profile-boosting, ego-trip of a documentary and then following it up by doing **** all of any consequence, bar a few concerts and lots of profile-boosting, ego-trip speaking tours? Of course not. If global warming was really a problem and he really felt passionate about it, he'd have run for President. With all the backing and publicity from Hollywood, as well as the liberal base, would he really have had less chance than John Kerry, a wooden man who subsequently missed out by about 32 votes?

I'm sat here waiting to be convinced, but all I can see are people using it as an excuse for publicity, stealth tax or arbitary local council fines.

exactly, and if it was a real problem they'd meet using Gotomeeting, not travelling across countries

 

[shrimperman]

Option 1.5 for me too. It's real, but man is a contributing factor than a driving one. Even so, my own belief is that it would be negligent of us not to do what we can to give future generations as big a chance as possible.

That's based less on any personal scientific expertise than on support for AGW from 90%+ of qualified, peer reviewed study. Proper science. Obviously it's unhelpful, not to mention unequivocally wrong, when individual scientists undermine the case by allowing their own partisan views to guide their actions, but underneath the media storm it's ultimately a fairly small dent in a pretty strong consensus for me.

In any case, tough measures are going to have to be taken sooner or later over our rapacious consumption of finite resources. I dare say that history will reflect more kindly upon us if we take a hard look at ourselves rather than become the latest generation of buck passers. Après moi, le déluge ain't much of a legacy to leave, IMO.

Quite. And you raise a very important point, that the use of unsustainable resources is by far and above a more serious concern.

 

[osymandus]

I'm sat here waiting to be convinced, but all I can see are people using it as an excuse for publicity, stealth tax or arbitary local council fines.

But that is the biggest problem , our societies are run by the ethic's of their economies , so unless it is like a scene frmo a disaster movie or going to teh change the markets over night then no people are content to let it be .

AS also saidf , the unsustainable resources found teh global economies , do those who built them want to risk them or a vuague notion of enviromental damage ?

 

[BaileytheQuitter]

Whether you believe it or not of course it is changing.

 

[TrueBlue]

It's a natural cycle, Fact of the matter is we're still in an "Ice Age" and there's enough evidence to suggest that throughout Earth's history it has fluctuated between ice age's several times. There's a damn site more evidence to suggest it's a natural cycle than there is that it's directly due to greenhouse gasses.

We're not helping matters, but it's pretty obvious we're not the direct cause.

But they would have you believe that so they can tax us!

Green = ££££

 

[Mad Cyril]

exactly, and if it was a real problem they'd meet using Gotomeeting, not travelling across countries

I'm sure this is what they would recommend the rest of us do.

 

[SARF]

If my great gandchildrens generation havnt learnt how to control the weather by the 22nd century then they deserve to roast/freeze/drown

 

[Jedi Shrimper]

As previously said, option 1 & 2. Of course 6 billion humans are having an effect, but nature's natural changes are far stronger.

Does change need to be effected? Yes. If we can cause less damage to the planet brilliant. Green measures do make sense, but mostly from a conserving natural resources perspective.

The most solid facts are that, things like oil, minerals etc are finite resources, that will eventually run out, and we have to find ways to use sustainable resources more thus preserving finite resources for when we really need them. Unless of course you think they're going to magically refill themselves like the magic lasagne tray from Garfield's dreams.

 

[southend4ever]

**** me we are a bunch of boring old farts!!! We are all going to be dead and not as a result of climate change. leave it to the next generation. lets leave it for the next generation. I don't want to support Gordon Brown and make his reign look successful when us zoners come up with 'earth shattering' ideas

 

[please delete my account]

Anything that means I can spend more time lounging around in my speedos watching scantily clad bints has got to be good.

I'm only glad I stockpiled loads of cans of Denim deodorant back in the 80's.

Kind Regards

 

[leeblue]

buy a boat and lots of tinned ham