Advertisement
This site uses cookies to improve your experience and to provide services and advertising. By continuing to browse, you agree to the use of cookies described in our Cookies Policy. You may change your settings at any time but this may impact on the functionality of the site. To learn more see our Cookies Policy.
OK
Dublin: 19 °C Wednesday 22 August, 2018

Comment #1634237 by Desmond O'Toole

Desmond O'Toole Sep 27th 2013, 9:30 AM #

It’s not a question of belief, it’s a question of evidence. We’re not talking fairies at the bottom of your garden here. Also, it’s not global warming, it’s climate change and whether human activity is a primary causal factor.

Reply
| Share | Report this comment

Read the article where this comment appeared:

Poll: Do you believe in global warming?

Poll: Do you believe in global warming?

There are plenty of sceptics out there but scientists say they are 95 per cent sure that humans are to blame for rising temperatures.

REPLIES

    Favourite Hedley Lamarr
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 9:55 AM

    So how do you explain the increase in size of the polar ice caps over the last year, Could it now be global cooling now instead of warming or just the normal workings of the planet. Either way paying more for fuel Tax in Ireland as china ,India and the U.S burn it like there is no tomorrow is not going to have any effect other than putting Irish people into a fuel poverty situation.

    160
    Favourite Emilio
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 9:57 AM

    How about instead of looking at last year’s data alone you look at the last century worth of data? You narrow-minded muppet?

    302
    Favourite Morticia
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 9:57 AM

    The global extent of polar sea ice is currently equal to its average over the past 34 years.

    84
    Favourite Sinabhfuil
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 9:58 AM

    ‘Believe in’? What is it, Santy? Of course global warming – or rather, to give it its more accurate and correct name, climate change – is happening.
    http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/big-thaw/
    http://www.wunderground.com/resources/climate/abruptclimate.asp

    160
    Favourite Tom Collins
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 9:59 AM

    If it were profitable for everybody to walk around in a fairy costume the evidence would be found in order to make it happen.

    78
    Favourite Emilio
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:07 AM

    Morticia, yes, sea ice is increasing, but that’s because of other reasons (maybe you should inform yourself). What about land ice? Constantly decreasing….

    70
    Favourite Hedley Lamarr
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:09 AM

    @Emilio.
    So the climate is only 100 years old, I did not know that.

    60
    Favourite Dave Gaughran
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:09 AM

    It is both global warming and climate change, because the average global temperature is rising, so it is very much correct to say that the Earth overall is warming, so it is accurate to call it global warming.

    The vast vast majority of the world’s scientists believe in it. Would you drive over a bridge that 90% of the world’s engineers said was unsafe? Look at the relations of power here, some of the most powerful corporations in the world are energy companies (i.e. fossel fuels) if there is going to be any sort of conspiracy then it is far more likely to be one against the existence of global warming rather than one of green hippies wanting to stop people using their cars, afterall they don’t have billions of euros for PR companies.

    106
    Favourite Emilio
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:13 AM

    @Hedley Lamarr

    There is plenty you don’t know, that’s for sure.

    51
    Favourite Hedley Lamarr
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:13 AM

    @Dave Gaughran
    One Word “Tax”

    49
    Favourite Michelle Mc Loughney
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:14 AM

    Hedley, this means nothing. If correct data is to be applied then a look at the environment from the industrial revolution is needed. Weather change is not climate change. If we want to look at the real culprit of environmental damage and climate change then the beef industry needs to be addressed.
    According to the 2006 UN food org report, 22% of all greenhouse gases are as a direct result of the meat and dairy industries. This is more than gases than produced by all other industry incliding transportation. More carbon dioxide, more methane and more nitrous oxide.

    45
    Favourite Paul Wagner
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:14 AM

    @hedley. The polar ice caps are larger than last year because of the statistical phenomena of regression towards the mean. What is is important is the trend, and the trend is that they are getting smaller. Look at this graph. This year they are bigger than last year, but they are also well below the longh term average

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticSeaIceMinimumCoverage.jpg

    68
    Favourite Dave Gaughran
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:16 AM

    @Hedley Lamarr
    One word, PROFIT.

    See we can all do that.

    55
    Favourite Andrew Murphy
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:21 AM

    Hedley – the 2012 summer saw a record shrinkage of the polar ice caps. 2013′s summer shrinkage was, by comparison to 2012, not as bad. But historically speaking it was still dreadful. The graph in the link below sums it up well. Stop clinging to excuses – the evidence is in, man is causing climate change.

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/09/10/climate_change_sea_ice_global_cooling_and_other_nonsense.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=sm&utm_campaign=button_chunky

    41
    Favourite Dave Harris
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:22 AM

    How about looking over the history of the planet – it’s always changed

    47
    Favourite Gerard Casserly
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:31 AM

    Average global temperatures are not rising, hence the name change “Global Warming” to “Climate Change”.
    It’s all a load of Harry Potter fairy dust.
    More CO2 gases are emitted from all the volcanoes on the earth than man could ever produce. A horse produces more CO2 in its life time than car.
    Better to shoot the dog than turn your heating down.
    It’s all a load of ball socks.

    49
    Favourite Dave Gaughran
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:37 AM

    @Dave Harris
    Believe it or scientists have actually thought of that, and they do look at the past and the planet has always changed and there has been global warming in the past and it was natural global warming and all that does not mean that this round of global warming is not man made. It is not change per say that is important, it is the rate of change, and the rate of change, this time round is extremely high.

    44
    Favourite Desmond O'Toole
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 10:51 AM

    Hedley adopts the approach of the young Earth creationists who deny the evidence for evolution through natural selection and is trying to adapt it for the climate change debate. In response to the overwhelming evidence that demonstrates conclusively that (a) the Earth is 4+ billion years old, and (b) that organisms evolve biologically through natural selection, creationists respond “But, look at the human eye. How can that possibly have evolved by random mutation, it’s so complex.” The strategy is to ignore the weight of evidence and raise one uninformed question about one or two items and try to claim a Gotcha! moment. Hedley’s questions are not a serious attempt to address the quantum of evidence for anthropomorphic global climate change, but rather a tired and all-too-predictable debating trick.

    52
    Favourite Paul Fogarty
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 11:12 AM

    Has it not also been proven that every planet in our solar system has heated up?

    Due to the fact our sun has entered into a more active phase in its cycle or can we blame that on human interference also?

    I have no doubt we have helped it along a tad bit but no where near what all the scaremongering would have you believe.

    27
    Favourite Ignoreland
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 11:57 AM

    Sorry, Paul but the sun is actually in a more dormant phase than was expected: http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-09-18/science/42182028_1_sunspots-maunder-minimum-solar-cycle

    30
    Favourite David Sexton
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 12:08 PM

    Hedley Lamarr are you really this stupid! You are the problem!

    29
    Favourite Joseph Gi
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 12:52 PM

    @ Desmond O’Toole
    “Hedley adopts the approach of the young Earth creationists who deny the evidence for evolution through natural selection and is trying to adapt it for the climate change debate.”

    Strawman argument: nobody referred to creationism in this article. From what I can tell, asking questions about why certain things do not add up in a theory is entirely what science is about. Whatever conclusions he draws about government interests on the matter are irrelevant as to the science.

    Your response, however, does not address any of his comments and arguments, and instead tries to ridicule his opinion by invoking opinions he never claimed. It is a textbook case of a strawman argument. It never ceases to amaze me how, if the case is so strong in favour of the theory of climate change / global warming, why the need for such illogic and nastiness against anybody who disagrees with you? Why such name calling by the others after you?

    For the record, his argument is wrong, because it is irrelevant what occurs one discrete number says in relation to a trend. You could have answered that instead of this drivel. Debate is ALWAYS healthy, and any attemps to kill it are by definition ‘sickness’ .

    16
    Favourite Rob O Reilly
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 1:01 PM

    Feckn cows farting ! I thought the phrase climate change was fashioned by oil companies implying that the temperature could go up or down ? Apparently the phrase global warming implied an actual change had occurred so they needed to convince people it had not yet and there was time to fix it. If it wasn’t a pressing issue most people would do nothing about it. Lastminute.com attitude.

    5
    Favourite Paul Nelly Nelson
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 1:05 PM

    The level of ignorance and naivety out there is scarey, the current trend of denying mankinds effect on the environment is driven by petrochemical companies and similar vested interets. They employ ‘bad scientists’ to ‘prove’ the hypothesis. All respected scientific communities and institutions are in agreement that we cause the climte to heat up faster than is natural. Bad science is where one looks for evidence to prove a decided conclusion. I challenge the non-believers to find a single article from a respected scientific source that denies our obvious effect on the climate. I would’nt mind if the science behind it was hard to understand, but its simple in the extreme. No issue except for maybe religion, shows how stupidly prejudiced many people are. Just keep driving that big engine in your blisfully ignorant state of denial!!!

    21
    Favourite Toirealach
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 1:31 PM

    Interesting documentary here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqxENMKaeCU

    1
    Favourite Macus Mc Mahon
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 1:46 PM

    you’re a muppet …… a ratty muppet …..

    1
    Favourite Continent Simian
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 1:52 PM

    That would be very profitable for fairy costume companies and yet here we are.

    1
    Favourite Continent Simian
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 1:52 PM

    Did you believe it was only one year old?

    1
    Favourite Joseph Gi
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 2:09 PM

    “I challenge the non-believers to find a single article from a respected scientific source that denies our obvious effect on the climate”

    FYI, your question is misleading. Scientific journals ovewhelmingly do not work this way. They present research undertaken by someone to prove their theory in their area of research; it is quite rare for someone to undertake disproving someone else’s work. They work by presenting theories, analysis, experimental & simulation results in the hope of convincing their readers.

    Nevertheless, a quick search found several journal articles. Here is your “single article”
    McIntyre et al, “Statistical analysis of multiple temperature proxies: are reconstructions of surface temperatures over the last 1000 years reliable?”, Annals of Applies Statistics 2011 5-1 pp56-60

    FYI, it doesn’t matter how many scientists I can produce. It matters whether or not their work is sound and whether they are convincing in their analysis. Full stop.

    7
    Favourite George O Neill
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 2:21 PM

    @ Andrew Murphy look this up http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html

    2
    Favourite Stephen Murphy
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 2:53 PM

    It is happening, the only people that don’t believe it! Are greedy, blind and selfish or stupid?

    9
    Favourite Pidge
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 4:13 PM

    1. Polar ice caps will vary year to year. This is called weather. We can have a hot Winter, followed by a cold one, followed by a hot one. What matters is the overall trend, not year to year comparisons. This year was very cold in the Arctic. Therefore there was more ice. The ice is in long term decline. Last year was particularly bad, so that makes this year look good. Look at this graph: http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticSeaIceMinimumCoverage.jpg

    2. Carbon-related fuel tax in Ireland is tiny. China is trialling an emissions trading system. The US has one in a few states. All of Europe has carbon pricing too, as does Australia (which will likely change under the new government).

    3. Fuel poverty is unlikely to be caused by the carbon tax, especially considering that more is spent on efficiency measures than is taken in by the tax. If you have a better idea for reducing emissions without putting a price on carbon, I’d love to hear it.

    7
    Favourite Robert Redmond
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 4:51 PM

    Agreed, I’ve always hated the term “Global Warming”. It’s highly misleading and tends to lead to pedantic arguments about Polar Ice caps, and slight decreases in ambient temperatures. Climate change, however, is based on decades of records and research by highly intelligent and respected scientists. I find it hard to believe that humans are responsible for the majority of it. We have only been an industrialized world for less than two hundred years or so. When you take into consideration the amount of greenhouse gasses emitted by cattle, buffalo and camels for example and have been emitted for thousands of years I think they are a more likely scapegoat. We are upping our contribution to it though, and we need to find a more carbon neutral approach to industry for the sake of the environment.

    4
    Favourite Jed I. Knight
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 5:12 PM

    We know with absolute 100% certainty that if enough dust and ash is thrown up into our atmosphere it will effect our climate dramatically. If this dust and ash should be thrown up there very quickly, in the case of a major volcanic eruption or a large meteorite impact, then the climatic effects will occur relatively quickly too, these will be dramatic and devastating. A super volcanic eruption could potentially end life on this planet principally through the effects it would have on our atmosphere and thus our climate.
    It can`t, or shouldn`t, be too much of a stretch to understand that if a major event depositing large amounts of pollution into the atmosphere can effect the climate rapidly then over time we, humanity, have been pumping smaller amounts of pollution into the atmosphere, we have effected it and thus have had an effect on our own climate over time. This process has largely happened since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the majority within the last 60 years.
    Any housewife who tried to dry washing on a line in Winter months while chimneys belched out smoke from coal fires in years gone by will testify to getting black smudges on her washing, that smoke also went up too.
    Its also a known that there`s a marked difference in the lungs of people from an urban and rural setting, you may never have smoked, lived a clean healthy life but if you live in a town or city your lungs are probably black from pollution. If you happen to live in an isolated rural community and live the same healthy lifestyle your lungs are probably a healthy pink.
    It isn`t a case of is Climate Change happening or not, pretty much every one worth a damn knows it is, it`s a question of proving it so that everyone else who`s in denial can be silenced.

    5
    Favourite Brian Hicks
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 27th 2013, 6:11 PM

    How about instead of looking at a century’s worth of data alone, you look at the entire climate history of the planet? Narrow minded muppet? Look in the mirror!

    3
    Favourite John Summers
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 28th 2013, 12:41 AM

    far has I am concerned it’s utter crap,i am sick of reading / listing what these so-called expert have to say-end off

    1
    Favourite John Summers
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 28th 2013, 12:48 AM

    as far has I am concerned it’s utter CRAP, I am sick of reading/ listing about these so-called expert–end off

    1
    Favourite Paul Nelly Nelson
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 28th 2013, 10:13 AM

    No one will argue with you john summers, it would be pointless…

    2
    Favourite John Mallon
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 28th 2013, 11:58 AM

    While I agree that the issue is climate change, as it has always been, it is far from clear than mankind is responsible or that penalising all of us will make one bit of a difference. It will of course make a huge difference financially to those collecting and spending the penalties and if it is a racket, it’s on a grand scale.

    1
    Favourite james r
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 28th 2013, 3:47 PM

    100% correct Gerard

    1
    Favourite Toirealach
    Hide Comment
    Report as Defamatory
    Report this Comment
    Sep 29th 2013, 10:17 AM
    1

Leave a commentcancel