Is it just me or is global warming a lot of bollocks?

[Long time dead]

The point is, and if you're so interested in material "with proper scientific argument and digesting years or research and future predictions rather than someone trying to make a name" why haven't you even bothered with the Stern report? That august body of work is hardly the work of anyone that you can diss or dismiss so easily. In that he states that it will cost a fraction of the cost now to deal with these issues  when we have a choice of what it will cost if we do nothing now to deal with these issues when we have no choice, and when those issues have reached the point where they threaten not just our way of life but our very being. And justify your "millions upon millions" please, a little bit of sensationalism eh?

Apologies I can only quote the whole statement, hence the italics.    But that aside, you not only made an assumption with what I have or have not read - tut tut to you - but you also give my direct question a complete miss.  Is it just that the myth of 25 metre water rises may affect you and yours that makes this issue so close to you; whereas AIDS, famine, world poverty etc at the moment have nothing to do with you - a bit of perspective needed me thinks.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Just read the Stern Review summary LTD, and weep. The 25-metre rise projection is no myth, let me repeat again the fact:

When temperatures increased to between two and three degrees above today's level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59cm but by 25 metres.

That is fact, not myth.

And from the Stern Review:

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far
outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

So the hunger, poverty and disease in the world today might just be like a picnic in the park compared to what awaits, especially for the poorest, in the not too distant future if we do little or nothing now. Head still in the sand?

[Long time dead]

Just read the Stern Review summary LTD, and weep. The 25-metre rise projection is no myth, let me repeat again the fact:

When temperatures increased to between two and three degrees above today's level 3.5 million years ago, sea levels rose not by 59cm but by 25 metres.

That is fact, not myth.

And from the Stern Review:

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far
outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Climate change will affect the basic elements of life for people around the world – access to water, food production, health, and the environment. Hundreds of millions of people could suffer hunger, water shortages and coastal flooding as the world warms.

So the hunger, poverty and disease in the world today might just be like a picnic in the park compared to what awaits, especially for the poorest, in the not too distant future if we do little or nothing now. Head still in the sand?

This fact would be more meaningful if the sea levels had retracted back to what they were 3.5 million years ago - the fact is they haven't and are much higher - these statistics are hidden from the World is about to end guys.  Look at these facts 71 percent of its surface is covered by salt water. Although very noticeable from space, the glaciers and ice caps contain only 1.6% of the total amount of water. Were all ice to melt, (assuming all ice is above sea level), the ocean (which is 3800 m deep, on average), could rise by 1.6 x 38 = 61 m. In past ice ages, the ocean stood about 90m lower (at some time even 125m!), implying that the amount of  water as ice could have been as much as 4%. As I said 25 metre myth. 

Just got my head out of the sand there. 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Now it's about how 'meaningful' a fact is, FFS.

And all we're getting now is a bluster of meaningless pseudo-statistics, i.e., in past ice-ages... which in particular, and you're jumping the gun somewhat in that we much breach the tipping-point first! There's nothing woolly about the sea-level having risen 25 metres -- that's absolute, and it doesn't much matter about the relativity about it

And from your own source:

Origin of the oceans
The origin of the oceans has puzzled people for a very long time, and even today, the issue has not been completely settled. The biblical view, expressed in the chapter Genesis, has held until last century, when other theories began to surface as a result of scientific knowledge. We'll have a look at some of these.

So all your blather about the height of the oceans, is just that, really, and you were on at me about data off the internet, struth! 

And what have you to say about Stern, and your remarks about the expense, etc.?  Tell you what, let's forget about by how much the sea-level will rise, let's just focus on what Stern has to say.

[Long time dead]

Now it's about how 'meaningful' a fact is, FFS.

And all we're getting now is a bluster of meaningless pseudo-statistics, i.e., in past ice-ages... which in particular, and you're jumping the gun somewhat in that we much breach the tipping-point first! There's nothing woolly about the sea-level having risen 25 metres -- that's absolute, and it doesn't much matter about the relativity about it

And from your own source:

Origin of the oceans
The origin of the oceans has puzzled people for a very long time, and even today, the issue has not been completely settled. The biblical view, expressed in the chapter Genesis, has held until last century, when other theories began to surface as a result of scientific knowledge. We'll have a look at some of these.

So all your blather about the height of the oceans, is just that, really, and you were on at me about data off the internet, struth! 

And what have you to say about Stern, and your remarks about the expense, etc.?  Tell you what, let's forget about by how much the sea-level will rise, let's just focus on what Stern has to say.

Yeah I said you get anything of the internet - you pushed for facts I gave you some from a reliable source - I really can't be bothered trawling through Google to get stats to counteract you world is going to end scenario, the point remains though and it is very simple there is less water in the ice-caps than there were 3.5 million years ago - so less water would be less of a rise in sea levels. 

As for Stern it is all theory - no-one but no-one knows if this process - if started at all can be reversed - at most if it exists it could be slowed down and stave of the end of the world - much better letting nature get on with it and look after the people on the planet at the moment.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Yeah I said you get anything of the internet - you pushed for facts I gave you some from a reliable source - I really can't be bothered trawling through Google to get stats to counteract you world is going to end scenario

Are you saying the world isn't going to end? It will when the sun burns up, but not before, and I haven't said anything on the contrary to that position.

... the point remains though and it is very simple there is less water in the ice-caps than there were 3.5 million years ago - so less water would be less of a rise in sea levels. 

A shallow understanding. It's not just the ice-caps, it's also thermal expansion of the oceans as temperatures rise,
glaciers,terrestrial storage, ongoing contributions from ice sheets in response to past climate change , thawing of permafrost , deposition of sediment... A few more variables for you to factor into your little equation.

As for Stern it is all theory - no-one but no-one knows if this process - if started at all can be reversed - at most if it exists it could be slowed down and stave of the end of the world - much better letting nature get on with it and look after the people on the planet at the moment.

That's your opinion, and a deeply flawed opinion in my opinion. Stern has no environmental agenda to push or talk up, he was an economist, albeit a highly respected one. He assembled the best brains there were to put together this review, to universal acclaim. Not even the sceptics could assail it in substance. His 700-page report consists of  little more of 'theory' alone, much more than theory.

Here are the opening lines of his report summary:

There is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, if we take strong action now.

The scientific evidence is now overwhelming: climate change is a serious global threat, and it demands an urgent global response.

This Review has assessed a wide range of evidence on the impacts of climate change and on the economic costs, and has used a number of different techniques to assess costs and risks. From all of these perspectives, the evidence gathered by the Review leads to a simple conclusion: the benefits of strong and early action far
outweigh the economic costs of not acting.

Notice the very deliberate use of the word evidence, i.e., not theory, and you still have your head in the sand 

[Long time dead]

My God man how many times does it need said there is evidence for both sides - serious scientific evidence - and as I said before throwing money at a problem - which if started will not halt but merely stave off doomsday by a few years - decades at most - these people would do better to tend to the needs of the masses now and not the unborn of the future.

[cville]

Jesusususususus H Chriissssssssssssssssssssttt! Will you stop playing the pseudo-intellectuals! I am totally blinded by the science so far. Fear ón Srath Bán - wise up - if Strabane was turned into a desert it would probably be more exciting than it is. Stop pretending to be intellectual .. I could go to the Net and plagarise a few articles that would call into question what you say... Chill out ...   Stop worrying about the end of the world when it's all balls! Trust me, next year will be the coldest on record...

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Weighty reponses lads... NOT. Stern is not the net, and vague references to your abilities to secure evidence here or there does not cut it. Using reliable sources of reference is not plagiarism, d'oh!

Another dig at Strabane cville, how grown-up.

[Long time dead]

Weighty reponses lads... NOT. Stern is not the net, and vague references to your abilities to secure evidence here or there does not cut it. Using reliable sources of reference is not plagiarism, d'oh!

Another dig at Strabane cville, how grown-up.

Yet you quoted http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/9/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf 

Stern is also not the complete authority on Global Warming FFS. 

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Weighty reponses lads... NOT. Stern is not the net, and vague references to your abilities to secure evidence here or there does not cut it. Using reliable sources of reference is not plagiarism, d'oh!

Another dig at Strabane cville, how grown-up.

Yet you quoted http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/9/9/CLOSED_SHORT_executive_summary.pdf 

Stern is also not the complete authority on Global Warming FFS. 

That's a web-link to a government-sourced, peer-reviewed, report. Hardly the 'net' per se, but maybe still worth a chuckle? 

And that particular document is a summary report, i.e., the findings. The full report is there too if you want to see the evidence that backs it up. That's good enough for me; who's saying he's a "complete" authority on global warming? What he paints is a comprehensive and complete picture, and backs it up. Now show me your evidence that disproves his evidence.

[nifan]

My God man how many times does it need said there is evidence for both sides

The weight of evidence certainly comes down on the side of global warming.
I am not aware of much reviewed research that denies it, surely only the rate of the effect is in question?

[An Gaeilgoir]

I am yet to be convinced by Global warming, i think it is just normal climate change...i read an article a while back that said air was the only thing that was not taxable by world governments... now with this global warming...we have carbon taxes, it was really intresting and no doubt in a few years clean air will be sold in supermarkets ...you know where you heard it first

[J70]

By the way does your concern only pander for future generations of the species or does world hunger, AIDS, famine etc - i.e. real issues in real time; not matter so much - personally I think the millions upon millions being ploughed into "saving the earth" could be better ploughed into saving the people currently on the earth.

Yes, because the two concerns are mutually exclusive.

There is plenty of money around for both, and in case you hadn't noticed, the livelihoods of many people around the world depends on conservation. For example, 50,000 people in New England and northeastern Canada lost their livelihoods when the Grand Banks cod fishery collapsed in the early 90s.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

I am yet to be convinced by Global warming, i think it is just normal climate change...i read an article a while back that said air was the only thing that was not taxable by world governments... now with this global warming...we have carbon taxes, it was really intresting and no doubt in a few years clean air will be sold in supermarkets ...you know where you heard it first

The fundamental problem I have with this attitude is this: if you're wrong and we do nothing to correct the current disequilibrium of the earth (where the earth's absorbing more energy than it emits) then we're all fcuked, if environmentalists are wrong then all stays as is and wherever that might lead by dint of natural events (and we might just enjoy the cleaner air to boot). And I'm as much for carpe diem as anyone else, but that does not mean we have carte blanche to pay no regard to the future we're leaving for successive generations. Once again, not a mutually exclusive perspective, as helping those sufferering in the world now and investing in zero-carbon technology are not mutually exclusive propositions (as J70 points out).

Carbon tax is not a tax on air, it's a tax on air-pollution -- big, big difference