TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 13 °C Monday 20 May, 2013

Column: Climate change warnings should put the heat on all of us

The last 12 months have seen unprecedented climatic developments, writes Gavin Harte. Are we going to heed the warning?

Gavin Harte

I TRUST THE scientific process. I think it is humanity’s best way of understanding the natural world, for acquiring new knowledge and integrating or correcting previous knowledge in a logical way.

I trust the scientific theory of anthropogenic climate change.

Just like the theory of evolution or the theory of gravity, the scientific theory of climate change has a robust and convincing body of scientific evidence behind it. Dating back nearly two hundred years and drawing from multiple lines of scientific research, scientists have been monitoring our planet’s climate and informing us of the rapid changes that are occurring, in large part, because of human activities.

The scientific conclusions supporting climate change have been thoroughly examined, tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results that the likelihood of them being found wrong is now inconceivable.

Climate change denial

Unfortunately a small minority of readers will not agree with this synopsis. Some people who read this article will reply by presenting some opposing hypothesis that claims anthropogenic climate change is not occurring or, at worst, is insignificant or benign. Unfortunately they are wrong.

In my experience, there are two types of people who have difficulty accepting the scientific conclusion of climate change.

The first group simply doesn’t understand the science. This is perfectly understandable. For many of us, science can be a distant and abstract concept that appears to have little or no bearing on our day-to-day lives.

The second group however is different; they have a conservative ideology that doesn’t allow them to accept the scientific conclusions of anthropogenic climate change. Research suggests that “confident”, conservative, white males contribute significantly to the high level of climate change denial in America. It is this group I believe will probably make the most noise in response to this article.

Extreme weather

The year 2012 will be remembered as the year of climate change warning.

Last year, scientists discovered that the Western Antarctic ice sheet was warming twice as fast as it was expected to, placing west Antarctica among the fastest-warming regions on Earth.

Snow cover in Europe and Asia last summer was the lowest since satellite observations began 45 years ago.

In July, NASA satellites observed unprecedented Greenland ice sheet surface melt, with an estimated 97 per cent of the ice sheet surface having thawed by 12 July. In fact, Antarctica and Greenland combined are now losing ice mass three times faster than they were 20 years ago.

In September, scientists from the National Snow and Ice Data Center said Arctic sea ice had reached the lowest extent since records began in 1979 – a drop of at least 45 per cent.

In October, Superstorm Sandy wreaked havoc on parts of the US East Coast – killing 125 people in the United States – and was blamed for about $62 billion in damage and other losses.

The year also saw persistent wet weather for the UK, resulting in total rainfall just 6.6 mm short of the 2000 record. In fact, four of the top five wettest years in the UK have happened since 2000.

This year

Australia started 2013 with new record 50 °C temperatures and over 100 wild bush fires.

Last week 13 US government agencies collectively published the third National Climate Assessment Report. This 1,000-page report, the work of the more than 300 government scientists and outside experts, was unequivocal on the human causes of climate change, and on the links between climate change and extreme weather. The report also highlighted that the steps taken by government to reduce emissions are “not close to sufficient” to prevent the most severe consequences of climate change. It is a story mirrored by governments all around the world.

This year will also see the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publish their first Working Group report of the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5). AR5 updates the last IPCC report AR4, which was published back in 2007 with the most up-to-date scientific research on climate change.

In expectation of the IPCC report, New Scientist ran a cover story in November: the story listed seven important scientific updates on the AR4 report and concluded the story with a comment from Steven Sherwood, an atmospheric scientist at the University of New South Wales. Sherwood said that “if humanity fully ‘develop’ all of the world’s coal, tar sands, shales and other fossil fuels we run a high risk of ending up in a few generations with a largely unliveable planet.”

Understanding the math

I started this article by saying that I trust the scientific method. German scientists calculated that from 2000 and 2050 humanity should emit no more than 886 gigatons of carbon dioxide (GtCO2) in to the atmosphere to stay below 2°C of global warming — anything more than that runs the risk of catastrophe for life on earth. In the last 10 years we have used 1/3 of that total budget leaving 565 GtCO2 over the next 35 years. We only have to do the math.

The political problem with this calculation however, is that humanity actually has access to 2,795 GtCO2 of known fossil fuel reserves, five times the safe amount to burn. So the problem for all of us is simple.

Do we burn more that 565 gigatons of carbon between now and 2050?

If the answer is yes, science knows what the outcome will be.

If the answer is no, we need to think and act very differently to figure out how we might achieve this goal.

This year the Irish government will publish a long-awaited climate change bill. At the moment it is understood they are considering a bill that is not based on a CO2 budget approach. Any future climate change legislation must have science-based targets for CO2 reduction if it is to work – because a law without targets is like a football match without goals.

Gavin Harte has been a spokesperson on environmental and sustainability issues in Ireland for many years. He has worked as the national director of An Taisce and was the founder and developer of Ireland’s first eco-village in Cloughjordan Co Tipperary and now runs ESD Training, his consultancy for Education on Sustainable Development.

Read next:

Comments (106 Comments)

  • One thing that always puzzled me is that roughly 500 million years ago in the Cambrian age,there was no ice in Antarctica and it had a tropical climate,also,as there have been many ice ages which could be considered extreme climate changes,what’s all the fuss about? (Source: Dennis Quaid,The Day After Tommorrow,2004)

    Reply
  • I’m freezing

    Reply
  • Mjhint 22/01/13 #

    Yes we have a problem but a lot of climate change sceptics are not interested & neither is the developing world. Its only recently that I have become interested in this problem & I believe its a bigger issue now than our financial problem. We talk of our children having a debt burden but not having a life sustaining planet is a far greater issue & without a doubt its in the post.

    Reply
    • What people fail to realise is that the global investment in renewable energy generation and research is about the same as non-renewable investment. On top of that investment in research into fusion power, especially in the EU, dwarfs investment levels in both renewable and non-renewable combined.

      It’s not like we’re scratching our arses doing nothing at all. Mind you we need to do a lot more for waste generation and recycling especially in Ireland. The Netherlands has recycling bins for old plastic everywhere and free local recycling centres for everything from natural waste to steel and cardboard. Why we aren’t pushing for something like that I don’t know.

      Reply
    • The first and most important thing to becoming more conscious is ‘reduce’ or consume less in your life. You will then become less reliant on the economic system and ‘want’ so much. I know this is hard for young people as they are being bombarded with advertising telling them they want and need everything. Reduce the amount of time you watch TV where the advertising is. Get out doors more and get involved in community projects.

      Yes we need to do a lot more. IMO there are about 10% conscious of the dangers humanity faces and they are adapting. We need to get to 20% for conscious living to become a trend and for the process to speed up. We are getting there although some people feel not quickly enough. Does this give one a reason to give up? Not at all. Once one awakens to the conscious path everything one needs to help the process will fall into place. At times you may feel down and wonder what is it all about. Feel it is hopeless. Step back from the negativity. Stop watching negative TV, reading negativity in newspapers. Take time out. Go for walks. Do something productive like growing some of your own food or take walks and pick up some rubbish each time. The positivity and ‘positive people’ will be waiting around the corner to meet you again and each time you will be stronger.

      The summers in Ireland are getting wetter due to the warming of the oceans and the melting of northern ice sheets (more water available for precipitation). Adapt to this in Ireland by rainwater harvesting, growing crops in polytunnels (made from recycled plastics – message to the government/councils, for investigation), and practice Agroforestry for farming. Agroforestry is the key to future successful farming in Ireland for farmers.

      Agroforestry will mitigate climate change and capitalise on it. Trees will soak up the excess water and will be pensions/inheritances for the future.

      The government and councils could be doing a lot more to be proactive with recycling. In the continent there are large yellow bins for plastic recycling everywhere. In many cases placed conveniently in the car parks of big supermarkets so you can recycle as you shop – clever!

      A positive plan for Ireland that mentions Agroforestry can be viewed here http://www.Trillions.ie

      ADAPT :)

      Reply
    • @EcoHubble……..great post

      Reply
  • B Lowe 22/01/13 #

    One point of interest and I’m not bashing climate change.

    Why is it that none of the articles on climate change mentioned the fact that it is not just planet Earth heating up, all the planets around us are heating up.
    This is due to increased activity from the the sun.
    There are not humans on the other planets causing climate change so why are they heating up as well?
    Can someone answer.

    Reply
  • How to present an unproven scientific theory: describe the theory as “fact”, accuse those who question the theory of being “ignorant” (unable to assess information with the same advanced intelligence as Gavan), “white”, “conservative” or ” males” (choose any or all), if they are American accuse them of being “Republican”, challenge the “deniers” on their beliefs in the “absolutely proven” (read – author’s belief in) theory of evolution (which is being constantly disproved), throw in a few random facts such as Aussie Summer temperatures and North American “superstorms”, puff yourself up as good and right and honest and loyal and true because you care about the climate and the “deniers” wipe their arses only on thrice-bleached fruit of the loom cotton grown using deadly chemicals.
    What a cretinous crappy argument this column makes, using the tried and effective lies that because one opposes poor science and poorer reasoning one is some kind of “denier” – what an Orwellian description..
    Keep the faith, Gav. And don’t forget your opponents (those who disagree with you) are best dealt with by dehumanising them and belittling them and accusing them of idiocy. Makes it easier to dismiss them as the xenophobic white racist pigs you and your ilk think they really are.
    Your comment “the likelihood of them being found wrong is now inconceivable” shows how closed-minded and intolerant you are.
    Do you think this comment is strongly worded and intolerant? It’s a slightly less than equal reaction to your pious rant above

    Reply
    • Poor Denis. Get out of the wrong side of the bed this afternoon?

      Reply
    • Is that a fact, Gavin, or do you surmise it? Your facetiousness is typical of the unscientific faith-based hysteria you and your fellow-believers bring to the subject that is global warming, global cooling and cow-fart climate change.
      Is your facetious comment the sum total of your ability to respond to my picking apart your fatuous argument? Hit me with another, big man. The only arrows in your quiver are abuse and ridicule. Science is alien to you since you redefined it as belief.

      Reply
    • No that’s it – nothing more to say to you.

      Reply
    • theory of evolution is being constantly disproven? ah now lad. Thats just idiotic.

      Reply
    • I’ll take the last word, so, Gavin.
      The likelihood of my being wrong is not inconceivable.
      Compare my statement to your opposing statement above and ponder which one is not blind faith.
      Did you figure it out? Your statement is that your position, regardless of the possibility of proof to the contrary, is absolute and immovable. In the real world, that’s called faith.

      Reply
    • Well denis can you explain how CO2 has been rising? Can you explain anything to do with climate change?

      Perhaps the CO2 is arriving here from space? Or solar winds are bringing it from the sun? Or the mermaid population of 10 billion in the oceans is farting it out.

      Look at the evidence. Gavin attempted to show that even with evidence people will not believe it and that is quite simply stupid. If more than 10,000 scientific publications say the evidence for man made climate change exist and less than 50 contradict it, what more do you need?!

      Reply
    • @ Conor the tiniest piece of research will demonstrate to you the impossibility of the evolution of numerous body parts, animal species and plants. Faith is required to drag your belief over the line. Common sense and mathematical probability disprove evolution. Not 100%, of course, but with more zeros than there are atoms in the universe. I’ll take the safe bet that its manure and Darwin was a donkey. Not an evolved donkey, just by nature a donkey-type. Consensus amongst evolutionists does not translate to scientific fact. THAT fact is becoming more widely known and accepted amongst truly inquiring minds.

      Reply
    • And yet you didnt answer my question. Did I ask anything about evolution?

      Reply
    • @ Conor Buggy I couldn’t care less about the scientific argument. The bullyboy tactics and unscientific accusations, the calling people “deniers”, the demographic stigmatisation of “deniers”, the hateful deriding of those who do not consent to popular opinion, even your own sarcastic comments are all indicative of a most unscientific climate change popular front which does not tolerate true and meaningful debate. Can you not see that you and Gavin are modern-day flat-earthers? You are as dogmatic about your science as flat-earth believers were about theirs.

      Reply
    • @ Conor Buggy there is more than one Conor posting this thread. When I answered Conor the first you weren’t involved

      Reply
    • Oh I forgot, you are the guy that says the Earth travelling around the sun cannot be proven on the thread about Fr. Tony Flannery!

      Lol Gavin theres no point even attempting to make a point to Denis relating to science.

      Reply
    • @Cpnor Buggy I merely pointed out the presumptions surrounding geocentricity and heliocentricity. Again, you back your “science” with facetious points-scoring and personal deriding of your opponent. Did you ever learn to present a point on its merits without resorting to having a chuckle at those you consider yourself the intellectual superior of? Have you ever stopped and considered that maybe you don’t know as much as you think you know?
      Arrogance is puffed up with knowledge but lacking in wisdom.

      Reply
    • And still no answer to my CO2 question……

      I dont consider myself to be intellectually superior at all. I do consider myself to be a bit more rational though. And you are the one who has stooped to insult me. I merely pointed a previous post indicating to Gavin that it is pointless to argue with you.

      Reply
    • @Conor Buggy. Again you don’t get it. I couldn’t care less if you had CO2 coming out of your methane outlet or vice versa. Humans may well be causing climate change. We are certainly impacting our environment, often negatively. My gripe is with the author of the column – or of any consensus “science” column – that brooks no argument to their faith-based position but, rather, demonises “dissent”. The majority who declare that their unproven and unprovable science is absolute are no better than flat-earthers who refused to listen to the tiny minority who argued the earth was circular.
      The author of the above column considers those who disagree with his views either of lesser intelligence or to be from a certain demographic and in pursuit of a certain agenda. In his own words “the likelihood of them being found wrong is now inconceivable”. I contend that were Einstein alive today he would listen to a challenge to E=MC2 and not stoop to demonising swathes of society or using random weather events to support his point. I’d wager he tested his own theory constantly. (As it happens, E=MC2 is being challenged in Lucerne. At least someone, somewhere is not just saying ” yes, yes, yes” but rather they are asking “why, why, why?”)
      I have absolute faith, but it is faith. That is what my system of belief – my religion, to use a common phrase – is based on.The above author has declared his absolute faith in a non-falsifiable scientific theory. Good luck to him. He then arrogantly dismisses ALL contrary opinion.
      I’m challenging that.

      Reply
    • I was following you until you brought faith into it. Not sure what faith you are referring to.

      Denis you are in a very small minority of people who look at the science and then still question it and question it and want more science. Thats good. I have total respect for that and I an sure Gavin does aswell. The people Gavin is referring to are the people who dont even look at the evidence thats there and simply say things like “sure its just to give scientists jobs” or “its a liberal socialist agenda” or “its a conspiracy theory”. And unfortunately there are quite literally millions of people like that and unfortunately a lot of them hold sway over politicians that the scientists rely on to change public attitudes and educate the public.

      All scientists must peer review and defend their studies and take on other expert opinions. If they dont their careers are over. So to be fair to you Denis it is not people like you that Gavin is referring to.

      Reply
    • I take your point, Conor. However, science is not dogma. When it is presented dogmatically, as above, it changes from a science issue to a moral one, and will brook no contrary view, because the contrary view is offensive to the believer.
      Sounds very orthodox to me.
      I believe the premises upon which the climate change theories are postulated are deeply flawed. Furthermore I feel no moral compunction to start panicking about the consequences of climate change. Some have suggested here I am throwing my unborn grandchildren to the wolves. The belief systems of the author and various commentators worry me not a whit, however my LACK of belief in their postulations worries them a great deal. I don’t toe the line, as many like me. It’s not a scientific argument, it’s a moral debate.
      I propose that when columns such as the above are penned, that the science be used to persuade, not emotive crap such as hurricanes and wet Irish summers. Because I don’t want to be preached at, merely informed.
      H

      Reply
    • Forget about climate change for a minute.

      STOP POISONING THE EARTH.

      Our life support system.

      Reply
  • Lets tax our way out of climate change haa mr noonan. Kenny.

    Reply
  • If God chooses to allow human kind to play out this role then so be it. He will rise again and…….LOL JK were all f***ed!

    Reply
  • Well lets have a look at the Oil and Gas Companies.. Exxon Mobil spent approx 10bn dollars a quarter on ”SHARE BUY BACK’ yep so it can pay a bigger dividend to shareholders and make it look like fossil fuels are growing (they’re not). Even with all the ‘Shale bubble’ there lots to show that we’re heading down the resource pyramid, and effectively whats there isn’t viable from an EROI perspective.

    So its a question of when we need to go to a different Energy source, not if we need to go.

    There is no debate about global warming among the scientific community . only amongst the Media

    Reply
  • The author and various contributors are a little to dogmatic, such narrow fixed fundamentalist views are at odds with the scientific method.

    Yes we have clear evidence of warming, and yes we have clear evidence of CO2 increase, and we can see some correlation between these in the past ice records. But as all scientists know correlation does not equal causation, all other factors have to be eliminated, climate is a very dynamic system.

    Anyone claiming absolute definitive facts and complete understanding of warming is simply wrong, there is a consensus currently of what is “likely”. A consensus exists, definitive proof is still missing, also definitive disproof is missing, so the jury is out, and we should of course err on side of caution.

    Personally I believe in the anthropogenic contribution mankind in making to warming, there is no question. However the weight of this contribution, and what other factors are involved etc are still up for question. (i.e. methane has increased faster and is 4 x times more potent etc)

    The scientific method is theory, experiment, then hopefully proof through experiment. (then replacement if new better theory appears) Dogma and absolute ideas are not welcome in science before proof, that belongs to religion.

    The experiment for CO2 warming is testing atmospheric warming at the height predicted by the theory, this has yet to produce results constant with CO2 warming.

    Reply
  • Denis 1 Gavin 0

    Reply
  • I was in the merchant marine in the 1950’s and the hurricane season in the Caribbean stretched from June to November and still does. I certainly believe in global warming but events being used to reinforce the claim should have a correlation to the evidence. After all Hurricane Sandy did more damage and killed more people in the Caribbean than in the US but without the intensive media coverage.

    Reply
  • There is an awful lot of opinions and assumptions based on so called facts that have not been proven in that article. Also a lot of your points about recent climatic events are using records that are no more than 50 – 100 years old.
    The climate is always changing and always will – that is the only real fact

    Reply
  • There’s no point in constant articles warning us of climate change/global warming etc without actually suggesting solutions that will work. Taxing people will NOT work and is only p!ss!ing them off.
    If we all agree that humans are causing the build up of carbon which is warming the earth then these are the only options

    1. Cease ALL carbon industry, coal, oil, and gas;
    2. Cull cattle and prohibit or ration people’s meat intake;
    3. Rid the roads of all motor vehicles except those required for emergencies;
    4. Have much much smaller houses/units in fact where heating and power is kept to a minimum;
    5. Prohibit flying and drastically restricting it.

    These are the options so everyone should put their money where their mouth is and agree to them. It’s a simple as that! I know, it won’t be a popular point but these are the facts.

    Reply
    • Eoin Faz 22/01/13 #

      Mayan calendar!

      Reply
    • Fran

      As regards the technical solutions….

      I don’t think it needs to be quite as hair shirt as you suggest there. And the investment required should at least ensure we have full employment for decades.

      Here’s a superb effort at detailing & quantifying all the various challenges, specifically aimed at a ‘lay’ audience:

      http://www.withouthotair.com/

      And another that deserves consideration: (about Britain, but the principles explained can apply anywhere)

      http://www.zerocarbonbritain.com/

      I think the only thing that Gavin Harte’s excellent & timely piece doesn’t get across quite so clearly is the ‘exponential’ nature of the changes that will occur.

      This is due largely to the heavily dominant positive feedback, or self reinforcing, mechanisms. These are the reducing ability of systems to absorb surplus CO2 as the planet warms, as well as things like permafrost melt which will then release massive amounts of methane & cause warming to accelerate again.

      Because of this, some of the science suggests that allowing a rise much beyond 2C (average, of course) could very well lead to a runaway rise to 6C and beyond. (Hence the reason 2C was proposed as a ‘target’ maximum.)

      When Mark Lynas examined (100s of) scientific papers for his book ‘Six Degrees’, it emerged that there is a significant chance that 6C of rise would ultimately & inevitably wipe out some 95% of all life on Earth, including us.

      The stakes +could be reasonably considered to be+ incredibly high, if we continue as we are & burn what’s left of the oil sands etc. We may have less than a decade to begin major action or the end of humanity will be simply a matter of the next generation or three helplessly watching the nightmare unfold.

      Just as we have seen thru’ the financial crisis and aftermath that political leaders and the top few percent are +not+ acting in the interests of the majority of citizens, but rather their own narrow interests alone, the exact same conclusion is inescapable when considering the issue of climate change. (And we could also say the same as regards diminishing energy resources, ‘peak oil’ etc.)

      Of course it takes, variously, a certain arrogance, ignorance & belief in one’s right to privilege on the part of the top few percent elites to be confident that the existential threat does not, or could not apply to themselves also, ultimately.

      But these last few years ought to have told us, if the last two thousand years of history has not, that they possess these qualities in spades.

      Reply
    • @Mike: That has to be one of the best comments I’ve read on this site. From listening to other people’s views on climate change it seems that positive feedback is largely misunderstood. A 2 degree average increase might not seem like much but the runaway effects could be pretty catastrophic…

      Reply
    • I don’t think positive feedback is misunderstood, however very often it is exaggerated without supporting evidence. Then used to create elaborate dramatic scare stories and disasters, all of which undermine the reality and possible risks.

      What is more misunderstood is the dynamic nature of climate and the planets history, it has never been constant, and it never will. Throughout our short history it has varied hugely, and before our time swung wildly up and down. A mindset determined to freeze our climate to exact conditions as measured 50 years ago is idiotic.

      Will climate always change : yes. Will life on earth including us have to always adapt : yes.

      Are we contributing to change that is outside of a natural cycle : yes in all probability. What extent is our contribution : unknown.

      What would be the natural cycle in the absence of our presence : most probably from examination of previous climate cycles 1 of 2 possibilities
      1. Continued warming, as has been been happening since the end of the last ice age.
      Or 2. Cooling and gradual decent into next ice age.

      The facts above are what is poorly understood, and reckless popular Hollywood style scare tactics simply make the science ridiculous.

      Reply
  • I understood “Super-storm Sandy” was a combination of a hurricane, which occur on an annual basis in the Caribbean and several anti cyclonic systems colliding with each other to produce the ” super-storm” and had nothing to do with global warming.

    Reply
  • If it was an own goal from Denis , Gavin would be 1 up

    Reply
  • I think I’m going to withdraw from the Journal’s comment feed for good.

    No matter what the subject, first out of the traps here, and persistent with it, are the Neanderthal idiots with barely a functioning brain cell between them. They dominate the comment, same as across the entire interweb. Where has this species come from? The likelihood is that their stupidity will wipe out humanity long before climate change can do so.

    Climate change is a scientific fact, just as evolution or relativity are scientific facts. Denial is the exact equivalent of being a flat-Earther.

    As to action to stop the destruction of the planet by human activity: it’s not ‘we’ who have to act, that is in the hands of governments, and they won’t. They have been warned, by their own think tank advisers, including military, that climate change is the single biggest threat to them and to the security of their states. Now, as that is their top priority (not our survival as a species) you would think they might act — but no, just hot air.

    Fact is, we are doomed. The trends are accelerating and it has been left too late for effective action to stop those trends reaching the tipping point where climate change becomes a runaway, irreversible process.

    Reply
    • So you’re saying the Earth ISN’T flat?

      Reply
    • Well that’s a depressing view! We should at the very least try to stop the most extreme changes from happening. Worst case senario should be that we acted too late, but in enough time to adapt…at least then we can say we tried!

      Reply
    • not to worry Karl, they may convince you of the theory of evolution and relativity but they have yet to disprove God…..oh and by the way, cheerio, you will be missed, NOT

      Reply
    • The issue is not between the ‘fact’ of global warming and the people (confident conservative white males LOL) who ‘deny’ it, it’s about what steps can and should be taken to make the world less polluted. And it’s certainly not between people who ‘care’ about global warming – or make a living preaching about it like the author – and so-called ‘Denialists’ (as if that were more than just a creepy way to describe people who disagree with you), it’s between people who understand that we can’t keep pouring sh*t into our environment and those who are too poor or corrupt to care. We’ll do what we’ve done in the past; invent our way out of our problems – probably causing new ones along the way.

      But you don’t fix it by taxing the very productive sectors of the economy most likely to come up with better ideas and give the money to government and their pals. Or worse, to third world countries as ‘compensation’ for the weather.

      Reply
    • Disprove God????? Disprove Santa for me John.

      Reply
    • I am not the scientist Micheal

      Reply
    • Eoin Faz 22/01/13 #

      When The Mayan Calendar predicted the World would end on 21/12/12, it pinned down the precise date of the global tipping point. That was the last day we had a chance to reverse global warming before a runaway effect commenced.

      Reply
    • @KarlMarcks…….. excellent post (in my opinion of course). What really worries me is that almost the entire planet is focussed on getting ourselves out of the current financial situation we find ourselves in. This “Growth” is going to further fuel the continuous rise in greenhouse gases. In short I believe we have taken our eye off the ball and we WILL suffer the consequences.

      Reply
  • tom 22/01/13 #

    Carbon is the new buzz word.
    Carbon quota, carbon taxes carbon fines.

    Reply
  • Science has nothing to do with the Climate Change “debate”. It’s all about Polemicists of various hues swinging their tackle at eachother.

    Science has bogged off to the bar where he’s making surprisingly good progress with a girl called Candy, he’ll later invite her up to his room and discover that she’s actually a prostitute.

    Reply
  • Climate change : can it be reversed ‘ is it gone to far to be changed ‘ is it a natural thins ‘ is there shillings in this for someone what’s causing it ‘ is there ans to these questions

    Reply
  • Is it not a bit ironic that on one of the coldest days of the year we are reading a articial on warming?

    Reply
  • Gavin Harte tells us he trusts “the scientific process”. Great.

    So Gavin, should be fine with nuclear energy. After all the vast majority of scientists who work in nuclear believe it is safe. GM crops and foods should all be a-ok as well.
    Would be great to hear a former director of an Taisce come out and tell us to trust the “consensus” science in these disciplines as well.

    I suspect Gavin that you trust the majority consensus in climate science because it suits your ideology (and forms a nice backdrop to a source of income for you).

    We all have vested interests that colour our views…

    BTW, while I do not have time to compile alternating “facts ” to contradict your article in detail, here is one link regarding the alarm at Western Antarctica and guess what, most of Antarctica has actually got cooler!

    http://www.ucar.edu/communications/quarterly/summer08/antarctica.jsp

    That’s one less thing for you to worry about!

    As HelloGoogleTracking! sensibly points out, the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) cannot be either proven or disproven – so in that sense it does not come down to trust – but rather to belief.

    Reply
    • Nuclear energy is safe.
      GM crops have helped millions of people around the world already.

      AND

      Climate change is real.

      It does come down to trust, you can trust nearly all the guys who spend their whole lives studying this or you can trust nearly all the guys who have interest in doing nothing and sulking about it on comment sections.

      Reply
  • Any advancement in Space Travel? I’m moving to another planet..,

    Reply
  • I’ve been doing my bit for global warming.

    I generate vast amounts of CO2 through brewing. We’ll have a good summer one day and I’ll have something to drink during it.

    Reply
  • Ran Wen 22/01/13 #

    I wonder is all this geoengineering going to steady the ship…

    Reply
  • What an advertisement for slapping on more carbon tax in the next budget – making our petrol, diesel, home heating oil and coal supplies even more expensive. Yay! Can’t wait for the €2 per litre diesel to make me stop driving to work. I hope all the tax they raise will be put to good use in providing cycle lanes for my 20 mile round trip through rural Ireland. If not, I’ll probably be better off on the dole – sure everyone else paying these extortionate taxes can support my dole claim.

    Reply
  • Why is it the issue of the suns natural climate change is never addressed in these articles/debates by you well informed scientific people…. I do not deny that us beings may have a slight influence on climate change, but it’s complete arrogance to assume we dictate climate change!

    Reply
  • Liam 22/01/13 #

    Climate change and science in general can be awkward to comprehend for most people, but the facts are there, climate change is happening and we are largely responsible, if anyone is having difficulty understanding it I suggest they check this YouTube page:

    http://m.youtube.com/index?client=mv-google&gl=GB&rdm=mgqd7556y#/user/potholer54

    On this channel climate change is explained in detail in an easy to understand way and any “facts” that deny climate change are debunked, it’s well worth having a look.

    Reply
  • what we are experiencing, if we are really experiencing anything at all is a natural cycle that we can absolutely nothing to halt.

    Reply
  • Those who assert the notion of man made “Global warming” are not asserting a fact or an immutable physical law. The consensus in the scientific community based on a combustion of empirical study and theory is a hypothesis, a provisional hypothesis but one which has a strong evidential basis. Anthropogenic causes may not be a 100 per cent explanation but high levels of carbon dioxide, methane and certain other gases in the atmosphere retain solar radiant energy in the atmosphere and have a causal effect on increasing warming, the oceans are warming up, providing moe energy for hurricanes and the various facts as known all point towards supporting the hypothesis. So an evidence based approach tends to support the hypothesis but not conclusively so to a hundred per cent certainty.

    Then consider the appalling risks consequent upon making the false assumption that since global warming cannot be proven with 100 per cent certainty, the opposite must be true and so global warming is a supposed fiction, an invention by mischievous scientists. The consequence of that fallacy of global warming denial, which hypothesis has not been disproven, is that we do nothing and by doing nothing, production of global warming gases will increase, thus accelerating the crisis , leading to death and appalling misery initially for hundreds of millions of people , Bangladesh etc, and the for billions.

    Dr Lovelock has convinced me of the validity of the hypothesis, to the extent that I believe it is rational , prudent and sensible to treat it as a working assumption. It may be the case that we are 60 to 70 years away from human life extinction risk although there are respectable hypotheses that a tipping point is not far away. If we stopped all anthropogenic CO2 and methane production tomorrow, CO2 will not dissipate quickly and its effect will remain for a very long time. Methane is less long term but more damaging and if we get large releases, due to massive thaws, the effects could be suddenly catastrophic.

    It seems to me that there is a lot of rigorous, respectable and high quality scientific research to support the hypothesis of global warming, we know the causal explanations and for this reason it is just smart to proceed on the basis that the hypothesis is well founded because the consequences of ignoring it are too grave and too drastic to ignore if it is correct.

    Of course, humans are good at recognising imminent risk but we find long term distant risk difficult to process. There are reasons why this is so but knowing the frailty of human risk assessment allows us to compensate for our under appreciation of such long term risks.

    For the global warming deniers, they have the comfort that, if they are wrong, it will be their children, if young enough and their grandchildren who will pay the price, not them.

    The selfish and short term strategy is to deny global warming knowing that it is only in third world countries now and in future generations that the price will be paid for our profligacy.

    Affluenza may prove to be the human extinction event.

    Reply
  • “Climate Change warnings to put the heat on all of us”.

    Sure isn’t that all we can ask for?

    Reply
  • There’s always the underlying assumption, based on the judeo-christian belief system, that human beings alone are the stewards of this planet (never mind the 8.7 billion other species that live here). We are intelligent animals, nothing more; and the sooner we get that through our thick skulls the better. Then maybe we begin to undo some of the damage we have inflicted on the Earth.

    Reply
  • Sparxz1 23/01/13 #

    I also “I TRUST THE scientific process” , when it is not being interfered with by criminals, who sole objectives is to use unfounded fear to generate wealth for themselves in the form of so-called carbon taxes. If theses criminals were jailed years ago, instead of being emboldened by corrupt government, we would not be in his worsening mess.
    Why Oh Why, are so called enivon-mentalists not concerned about real issues like GMO contamination(that kills rats in lab tests) in our food chain. Or how about US and UK gov getting involved in deliberate “geo-engineering” of the climate, which they boast about on their websites(You won’t read that in the Irish Times!).

    Reply
  • Karlmarks tell all that to the lads that are taking our money’ tell them they won’t have time to spend it
    see what happens

    Reply
  • If this is global warming you can shove it up your ass.

    Reply
  • sooo… what kinda weather can we expect then .. that article was a bit over my head..

    Reply
  • Ah Here 22/01/13 #

    Nice one, Gavin. Keep fighting the good fight.

    Reply
  • Best thing that could happen to this planet is that nature wipes out a few billion people. God will cleanse the earth as he has done in the past.

    Reply
  • fergus 22/01/13 #

    Threat of nuclear war long gone all the anti nuclear protesters need something else and scientists need money for research hence study rainfall no money for research put due to climate change on that sentence and bang loads of money for research.

    Reply

Add New Comment