Comments on: Times’ climate change poll contains good news and bad

By: Anon E Mouse

Anon E Mouse — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:02:14 +0000

Claire – I do think we should reduce CO2, I just don’t like all this panic merchant doom sayer stuff.

To hear our Prime Minister making outlandish claims about Copenhagen saying “We only have 56 days to save the planet” is just pathetic.

I did hear a scientist on 5 Live last night who was explaining how the sun (that pole flipping thing) was affecting the climate re: solar radiation so perhaps the climate change brigade are at least now trying to include that data as well which is a good thing.

I don’t read the Mail myself but remember as Britain’s second biggest daily newspaper a lot of people agree with it’s views on things, including the reasons for climate change.

By: Claire Spencer

Claire Spencer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:23:29 +0000

I can’t believe you made me look at the Daily Mail *washes eyes*… …but yes, I had heard of this, and it is interesting. But it does not support the stance that climate change is not man made – Dr Knorr is pretty clear on that: http://jonesthenews.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/bristol-research-does-not-support-climate-change-denial/

By: Anon E Mouse

Anon E Mouse — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:51:02 +0000

Claire – try this as a start, the links are from it….

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1226808/Earth-absorbing-CO2-claims-climate-change-study.html

By: Claire Spencer

Claire Spencer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 15:41:15 +0000

I don’t think there is a single climate change model, to be honest with you – certainly, methane was often overlooked until relatively recently – but there are numerous models that do take it into account, and I know that climate scientists keep an eye on atmospheric levels of the gas. But ultimately, it is pushed into second place by carbon. I’ve said this on here before, but climate science is unpredictable – so the more data collected, the more accurate the picture will be. It takes more than one result to reshape the picture – although obviously, I’d still like to read what you are alluding to. Was that the study which said that forests took in more C02 than previously thought?

I think in terms of getting individuals to engage with the issue of climate change, it just makes sense to talk in terms of carbon – if nothing else, it’s easier. If people genuinely live more sustainably, the other GHGs will, at least to some extent, also be reduced. However, I do agree with you that we don’t need to make the point using climate change alone, we should also be thinking seriously about the fact we are running out of oil – something that we can all agree and act on.

By: TPA more “out of touch” than the Archbishop | Left Foot Forward

TPA more “out of touch” than the Archbishop | Left Foot Forward — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:51:16 +0000

[...] as Left Foot Forward reported yesterday, there is clear poll evidence showing support for higher green taxes. • 57 per cent [...]

By: Anon E Mouse

Anon E Mouse — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:22:25 +0000

Claire – the problem is for myself I simply don’t believe it is all down to CO2 humans produce. I agree the CO2 that is affecting the climate on the planet – it contributes to the top layer of our atmosphere – the ozone layer but the climate change model doesn’t even include methane or O3. How unscientific is that?

Same with the scientist the other day – the head of carbon studies at Munich University I think – who stated CO2 absorption was higher than predicted and his basis was on actual ice cores and other “provable” data yet he is completely ignored by people with an agenda based on (biased) speculation.

Stop producing CO2 and other pollution because it’s cleaner, not because of some unproven mumbo jumbo.

By: Claire Spencer

Claire Spencer — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:15:38 +0000

These debates need to be had, but I think the media does a lot of harm by treating all experts as equal. Ben Goldacre made an excellent point on it re: Darwin – you might get 1 creationist scientist to 1000 scientists who accept the theory of evolution – but in the interests of balance, it looks like 50/50 to the audience. That is hardly an accurate portrayal of scientific opinion. The same is true of climate change, although I grant that the science is less certain, and less predictable in this case. Nonetheless, I don’t think it is being shoved down people’s throats – and if it is, it is not being done correctly. And that is important – neither side should seek to misrepresent the situation.

By: Anon E Mouse

Anon E Mouse — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:29:16 +0000

Just wondered if anyone else caught John Humphrys this morning on the Today program challenging the woman from the Climate Change lobby on her science (or actual lack of it as it happens) regarding Copenhagen.

Nice to see open and honest debate about this matter for a change instead of having this pseudo-science of speculation rammed down the (skeptical) publics throat.

I’m sure as progressives we can all agree on the importance of debate and freedom of speech and expression.

(Bet they still hold that conference however so they can all get together and pat each other on backs and increase the carbon footprint while they are at it).

By: Michael Haddon

Michael Haddon — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:28:29 +0000

RT @leftfootfwd: Times’ climate change poll contains good news and bad http://bit.ly/365Nxv