Climate change – Denial, Scepticism or Confusion?
Still a Climate Change Sceptic?
Recently I have been doing my bit to help fight the war against global warming and climate change. I realised that I knew very little of the science behind it and clearly here on ConfusedbytheWorld ignorance cannot be tolerated! With this in mind I decided to get into the environmental groove, put on my 100% free-trade hemp hat of confusion and blog my way to environmental enlightenment!
So I hit a few ‘green’ forums, introduced myself and started trawling through various posts and blogs regarding the environment. The problem with the tinternet, as most people know, is the sheer amount of irrelevant information that you can find through searching. This problem is compounded when researching the environment by the large amount of conflicting information and opinions. After a great deal of research I found myself surprised that there still appears to be a large wave of climate change and global warming scepticism bouncing around the net. Just exactly what are people sceptical about? Is it scepticism over the terminology of ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ and what these theories actually advocate? But surely this is just semantics about phraseology. Can people really be suggesting that the effect of humans upon the globe is not, and has not, adversely affected the world’s environment?
Damn cockroaches always survive..
Clearly human existence has seriously altered the face of the world. Throughout our history we have engaged in multiple wars, miningoperations, agricultural projects and construction. In our attempts to build societies and communities we have taken parts of Mother Earth and altered her irreversibly, like cosmetic surgery gone wrong. Sceptics cannot argue with this. FACT – human civilization has terra-formed the globe, and the world’s natural state will never be the same again. We have in our race and greed for resources and new technology unbalanced eco-systems, destroyed vast tracks of forests and polluted our planets rivers and oceans. There can be no denying this – we have adversely affected the globe’s natural environment throughout the span of human evolution. Empirical evidence and statistics prove this. Just take into consideration the amount of animals that humanity has hunted into extinction. Also consider the evidence of overfishing and the plummeting numbers of the world’s fish populations. Not to mention the ever decreasing size of the planet’s rainforests.
Reading between the lines…
My common sense, along with the large amount of literature regarding ‘climate change’ that I have read, leads me to accept the fact that ‘global warming’ is happening and this in-turn will have a serious effect upon our world’s weather patterns and climate. The sheer amount of statistical evidence cannot be ignored. For those who still disbelieve or disparage the arguments on climate change I suggest that you read this particularly good article from New Scientist in which a lot of ‘climate change’ myths are neatly dispelled. The article impartially deals with both for and against arguments and artfully highlights the associated problems with working on climate models which have to factor in thousands of variables. I draw particular attention to the sectionwhich discusses the scientific communities’ general and overwhelming consensus that climate change is occurring. Of course the Earth naturally goes through cycles of cooling and warming, this is not contested, the evidence of ice ages and their cycles is apparent. What some people still seem to argue about is whether or not human activity does or does not seriously affect the Earth’s climate system.
Climate change – There’s no denying it…
It’s true! Although you can argue against it the general consensus of the world’s leading scientists is against you…. To sum up I’m going to draw a few conclusions that clearly suggest human activity is adversely affecting the world’s climate and environment. I’m not going to provide a wealth of evidence to back my conclusions as any 5year old can google their way through the interweb and find the relevant information.
Thousands upon thousands of acres a day are being chopped away from the world’s rainforests. Removing these valuable CO2 sinks causes the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to increase. CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas and a continual increase in CO2 leads to a global temperature rise. One main reason for clearing away tracts of forest is to increase the amount of agricultural land. This can lead to desertification and an increase in greenhouse gas emissions, which in-turn adds to the global warming effect. Irrigation, over-grazing and deforestation of arid lands causes desertification across the globe. An estimated six million hectares of productive land is lost every year because of desertification, land degradation and declining agricultural productivity. Climatic changes are both a consequence and a cause of desertification. The destruction of the natural grass and woody vegetation cover in dry areas affects the topsoil temperature and the air humidity and consequently influences the movements of atmospheric masses and rainfall. Furthermore, the drying of the soils and the destruction of soil cover encourage air erosion. Not only do these factors effect climate change, but they also destroy wildlife habitats, alter eco-systems and add to global poverty across the world.
Is it hot in here, or is it just me?
Determining the true impact of these factors on the world’s weather patterns and climate is hard to determine, but clearly they do have an impact no matter how small. A lot of these factors are both natural and influenced by human activity, unfortunately it could take decades to accurately determine their impact on the globe. And although we may not know the ins and outs of it all yet, surely there is no point in denying it any longer.
“Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth.” – Ambrose Bierce
9 Comments to “Climate change – Denial, Scepticism or Confusion?”
Looks like your question thing at the end of the post worked. Also not having to sign in is nice too. Good job. Nice list. Thanks.
lol dude, “This is my first time comment at your blog. Good recommended website.” cant really be your first comment seeing as you spammed on 3 other messages before this one, by the way noone wants arch-lord gold because the game sucks.
This is my first time comment at your blog. Good recommended website.
[...] confused who as good is fasten in to have efforts to quarrel a quarrel upon tellurian warming – climate shift confusion which argues which tellurian warming is without delay attributeable to tellurian wake up as good as [...]
[...] Climate change – Denial, Scepticism or Confusion? [...]
Thanks for the comments guys keep them coming. Like I said in my post theres alot of conflicting information on the net and climate change science is of course difficult to accurately define due to our own ignorance and the colossal factors involved. I agree Judy on the point about climate change computers and simulations, they are I believe particularly innacurate but still a useful tool anyway.
On the other aspect “the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist” I cant see how this is not a physical effect, it is of course a natural phenomena but one which we have particularly added too within the last few generations. Im not sure i agree on the solar forcing issue, seems to have been debunked on the New Scientist article, but without being a lot less ignorant than I am, I have no idea on its accuracy.
Claim and counter claim is the work of science, and without this we would never progress. Galilieo was imprisoned for his counter claims but in the end he was proved right, on climate change we shall see……. but thanks again for your input – Help fight ignorance!
This planet would be better off without humans FACT
[...] here from confused who too is joining in to make efforts to fight the war on global warming – climate change confusion which argues that global warming is directly attributeable to human activity and firmly emphasises [...]
Maybe if you didn’t turn to the advocates of the AGW scam, you’d find that CO2 is a beneficial trace gas with no capacity to change climate. Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv’s piece is a good place to start.
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? CO2 or Solar
Two German physicists, Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, of the Institute of Mathematical Physics at the Technical University Carolo-Wilhelmina in Braunschweig and Dr. Ralf D. Tscheuschner, co-author of a July 7, 2007 paper titled “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within the Frame of Physics”.
“The main results of our paper are:
- the CO2 greenhouse effect is not an effect in the sense of a physical effect and, hence, simply does not exist;
- computer aided global climatology will not be science, if science is defined as a method to verify or falsify conjectures, according to the usual definition of science.”
“Due to research grants, huge amount of financial support, virtual global climatologists suffer from a kind of omnipotence delusion comparable to the state of highness of the early super string community. However, physics is different. “Physics is where the action is”, I.e., finally, reproducible results in the lab. We cannot overemphasize that science is a method to prove conjectures, and not to go on-stage like the pop star Al Gore performing what-if-when-scenarios beyond any reality and scaring kids.”
“We (Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner) are very sorry that we cannot reply to all statements published in Internet blogs since our “times on-line” are rather limited. Especially, we do not reply to semi-anonymous virtual climate pets like Eli Rabett and other Internet geniusses such as Gavin Schmidt, Stefan Rahmstorf and others at “Real Climate” or “Atmoz Blog” anti-scientific smear sites. Most of them do know so little about physics such that they quote the second law of thermodynamics incorrectly in order to falsify our work. Even the difference between energy, work and heat seems to be unknown to these experts. This cannot be the basis of a scientific discussion.”
“To put it bluntly, virtual climate research (Pierrhumbert and his buddies may call it “real climate” research) is nonsense (non-science). The thousands of publications reviewing the results of these computer games are not worth the papers they are printed on, not to mention the hardware, CPU times and memory.”
Climate Alarmism
Revolt Basic theme by NenadK. | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).