Good post, Angus - though I suspect that some will remain unconvinced.
I have taken a step back from this thread, to ponder why some people persist in refuting scientific evidence with regard to global warming, and mans contribution in the form of billions of tonnes of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually.
I was born the same year as skuzzy and lukster (aka AKIron), and was in my early teens during NASAs Apollo programme to put man on the moon. I watched on TV with particular interest, especially from the Apollo-8 mission (first manned space flight to leave earths orbit) through to Apollo 11, and heard the words One small step for man live on TV, shortly after Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon. I was in awe of the scientific research that had taken place to make this feat possible, less than 70 years after Wilbur and Orville Wright had made mans first powered flight over a distance shorter than the 231ft length of a Boeing 747.
100 years prior to the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing, there would have been many naysayers, who believed that manned flight of any kind was impossible, and who even believed that the earth was flat. However, by 1969, when the event was about to happen, no-one was in any doubt that man would indeed walk on the moon, as the Apollo craft sped towards it. But lets consider for a moment the calculations that would have been needed to make this possible the relative positions of the sun, moon and earth and the movements of these celestial bodies would have to have been taken into account. The timing of the relaunch of the moon vehicle in order to re-dock with the lunar orbiter would have been critical. It all happened because of a well thought out plan. In short, the NASA scientists and their associates
knew what they were talking about and we never doubted them. In the years since, I have often marvelled at the way astronomers can predict when and where a solar eclipse is going to occur, especially as these predictions are made YEARS in advance. The last one I saw here was on 11th August 1999. The fact that it happened, right on cue just as scientists/astronomers predicted, tells me that these scientists
know what theyre talking about. And again, when the event was about to happen, no-one was in any doubt that it would. No-one here was citing these predictions as scientific mumbo-jumbo on 10th August 1999, for example.
Now we have a different situation global warming. Unlike the next solar eclipse, the calamitous end result (assuming Man continues on the present course) is
decades away, and will probably not happen to any significant degree within the lifetimes of those of us who were able to watch the Apollo moonlanding. Thus, the sceptics can pooh-pooh the scientific data presented by guys like Curval and Angus ^ and do it from a position of relative safety, knowing that they probably wont be around when the excrement hits the fan.
But I find it interesting that those who are the most dismissive of the alarms about global warming reject the scientific findings out of hand in the first place, and then search for ways to discredit them afterwards. I struggle to find a way to define this strange behaviour, and can best describe it as reverse dogmatism. Instead of presenting their own views as the absolute truth, they do the reverse by citing the views of others (including accomplished scientists) as patent falsehoods in the first instance, and then look for ways to discredit these claims in the second instance.
Earlier in this thread, I said Id been following David Attenboroughs series on global warming:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/climatechaos DA is actually a zoologist, who has been presenting programmes on the subject since the 1970s, covering just about all species of animal, reptile, insect, fish and bird known to man, as well as their evolution and that of the earth itself. Clearly the man isnt stupid. So why would anyone doubt the material presented in his series about global warming, even if climatology is not the epicentre of his field of expertise?
Could it be that the proposed changes that Man needs to make to avert the disaster of global warming are perceived as going against the personal lifestyles of certain individuals who persist in refuting the scientific evidence? Could these same people be thinking that its all a conspiracy, and a government ploy to take away their vehicles, for example?
Having been reading this thread and others like it for several months now, Im seeing some ridiculous claims being made, falling into three broad categories.
- Because global warming may be part of a natural cyclic change - however small, we should be absolved of any responsibility to reduce Mans CO2 output, ie. we can forget about the trillion tonnes of CO2 which will be emitted by 2050. And because global warming is happening on Mars, well hey that just proves that its nature at work, and not our problem!
- "Its all a conspiracy. The government has an agenda and wants me to drive a smaller car"
- Its all to do with cow farts
That last item is so ridiculous as to be barely worthy of mention. But whats even more ridiculous is the claim that global warming and climate change is a political issue. I can assure you that the disaster waiting to occur will take place whichever party is in power!
But even that is not as ridiculous as the latest naysayers stance, which is that concern for climate change is a form of religion. That surely takes the biscuit.
