Personal View site logo
New Global Climate Change Report - Is the Controversy Over?
  • 35 Replies sorted by
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev
    @brianluce

    I do not see any scientific proof here.
    Problem with such potential proof is what different theories exist.
    Many state that CO2 fluctuation is normal for our earth, some state that it is of human origin but will cause colder climat, other state that it is human and will cause warming, and different kind that blame animals and methane for all climate changes. All this is possible because scientists fuckingly bad understand how climate works and changes in reality.
  • brianlucebrianluce
    @Vitaliy
    "No scientific proof exist that CO2 is responsible for any climate change."
    .............

    NASA, and Jet Propulsion Labs seems not to agree with you. From NASA website:

    * The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century.2 Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.*

  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev
    >But look at the latest 100 000 years it has been "stable". These 100 years has not been stable. And from a climatologist perspective 100 years is just over night.

    It is false facts. I mean about stabilizy other 100.000 years, and unstability other last 100.
    No scientific proof exist that CO2 is responsible for any climate change.
    As well as no proof exist that such fluctuations are dangerous and never happened before.
  • jokieonejokieone
    @Vitality You're right about the efficiency of green technology. It is not there yet. But why shouldn't we lay the foundation for the future. Because the future is green technology, there is no denying. Even from a realistic perspective the pragmatic solution still is green tech. If the developing countries want a position on the global market they can't relay on even by todays standards old tech.

    I also want to point out that a nation can never act idealistic, it is against the nature of todays system. But here is where i now our opinions differentiate. I still want to strive for an idealistic solution in those aspects where the problems are global. Because global problems must be solved globally or we will have free-passengers.

    This includes the I-countries responsibility to pay their ecological debt. Because we have been free-passengers of an luxury that does not exist any more. Therefore our western ideal of welfare must be crushed.

    @fatpig Yes. Natural changes are common in the long perspective. But look at the latest 100 000 years it has been "stable". These 100 years has not been stable. And from a climatologist perspective 100 years is just over night. Climate changes does not happend naturally over night. Unless there is an external source in this case CO2 emissions, or do you deny that CO2-emissons are being released?
  • brianlucebrianluce
    There is no controversy among the scientific community. Notice that this latest contrarian from Berkeley isn't even qualified on way or the other, he's a Physicist, not a Climatologist. This is typical as contrarians who taut scientific credentials in nearly every case are from disciplines other than Climatatology and Atmospheric Sciences OR, they're on the Payroll of big energy companies. Then there are hacks like Willie Wei-Hock Soon, a Harvard Astrophysicist who manage the hat trick of speaking outside his discipline AND accepting gobs of cash from oil companies. He's a Astrophysicist and you can hear him talking about Polar Bears.

    The National Science Academies of every major country have already spoken on the issue with unanimity -- right wing propaganda machines like Fox News notwithstanding.

    There really isn't even much credible debate remaining on anthropogenic climate change. Naysayers are few and far between, unfortunately it's an upstream battle to get the truth out.

    The developing countries I've been in sure aren't experiencing the green revolution and aren't being oppressed by regulation. It's so the opposite of that: developing countries trash their environments like there's no tomorrow. Any and all regulations that might be on the books are easily circumvented with a few cash payoffs.

    Here's a video I produced 3 years ago (just prior to DSLR revolution), take a look and see if you think this country looks GREEN. Btw, shot with JVC hd100.



  • fatpigfatpig
    Yeah its happening. But its not happening because of us or our technology. It happened before, and it happens now. Same as Ice Age. Will also come again, despite of humans.
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev
    @jokieone

    I like your idealistic view on "green technology".
    My view is exactly opposite. You can look at the wind turbines and solar panel markets to see real value fo such "gree technology". As soon as taxpayer money are not used as stimulus to compensate horrid effectiviness of this "new technologies", things become very bleak.
  • jokieonejokieone
    Global warming is happening. That is the end of it. Conspiracy theories in all honor but you can't deny it. Even developing countries are investing heavily in green technology, not only via CDM or the greenfund but also independently; for an example China is taking drastic measures to reduce their CO2-emission.

    @Vitality. Is it a tool to prevent the developing countries the right to develop? No it's not.
    Has that been the consequence? Unfortunately it has and that is because way the natural shift towards green technology via the free market has become realistic. We should strive for an idealistic solution but we can't do that as long as CDM etc is fueled by emission trading, which acts realistic atm.

    I can see that green technology is holding back developing countries and I'd see this as a perfect time for the western world to pay back the ecological debt. But I can't see that global warming would be a "western fraud" . You can deny nation-bounded climate reports but their is many more individuals who are saying the same thing. Johan Kleman to name one.
  • cosimo_bullocosimo_bullo
    Good, this is the start of a good debate. Do most others believe:
    "global warming" is no more than a tool used to hold development of many countries"?

    My thoughts are mixed.
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev
    It is not so simple :-)
    because so called "global warming" is no more than a tool used to hold development of many countries.
Add a Comment