Mankind Can't Influence Climate (1 Viewer)

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21542564-421,00.html



  • Solar activity a greater climate change driver than man
  • '0.1 per cent of carbon dioxide due to human activity'

MANKIND is naive to think it can influence climate change, according to a prize-winning Australian geologist.

Solar activity is a greater driver of climate change than man-made carbon dioxide, argues Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology at the University of

Adelaide and winner of several notable science prizes.


“When meteorologists can change the weather then we can start to think about humans changing climate,” Prof Plimer said.


“I think we really are a little bit naive to think we can change astronomical and solar processes.”


Speaking last night after presenting his theory for the first time, to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy in Sydney, Prof Plimer said he had researched the history of the sun, solar and supernovae activity and had been able to correlate global climates with solar activity.


“But correlations don't mean anything, you really need a causation,” Prof Plimer said.


So he then examined how cosmic radiation builds up clouds.
A very active sun blows away the cosmic radiation, while a less active sun allows radiation to build up, he said.


“So you can very much tie in temperature, cloud formation, cosmic radiation and the sun,” he said.


The next part of Prof Plimer's research was to examine the sources of carbon dioxide.


He said he found that about 0.1 per cent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide was due to human activity and much of the rest due to little-understood geological phenomena.


Prof Plimer also argued El Nino and La Nina were caused by major processes of earthquake activity and volcanic activity in the mid-ocean ridges, rather than any increase in greenhouse gases.


Nor does the melting of polar ice have anything to do with man-made carbon dioxide, he said.


“Great icebergs come off, not due to temperature change but due to the physics of ice and the flow of ice,” Prof Plimer said.


“There's a lag, so that if temperature rises, carbon dioxide rises 800 years later.


“If ice falls into the ocean in icebergs that's due to processes thousands of years ago.”


On the same basis, changes to sea level and temperature are also unrelated to anything happening today, he said.


“It is extraordinarily difficult to argue that human-induced carbon dioxide has any effect at all,” he said.


Prof Plimer added that as the planet was already at the maximum absorbance of energy of carbon dioxide, any more would have no greater effect.


There had even been periods in history with hundreds of times more atmospheric carbon dioxide than now with “no problem”, he said.


The professor, a member of the Australian Skeptics, an organisation devoted to debunking pseudo-scientific claims, denied his was a minority view.


“You'd be very hard pushed to find a geologist that would differ from my view,” he said.


He said bad news was more fashionable now than good and that people had an innate tendency to want to be a little frightened.


But Prof Plimer conceded the politics of greenhouse gas emissions meant that attention was being given to energy efficiency, which he supported.


The professor, who is writing a book on the subject, said he only used validated scientific data, published in reputable peer-reviewed refereed journals, as the basis of his theories.
Its finally good to see some common sense coming out of the scientific community as opposed to the regular global warming/cooling etc. hysteria stirring that has become the mainstay of of the panicky left and their pet scientists. I guess it also shows you can't debunk hysteria without debunking arrogance first.
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
"i just love it how the opinions of one or two citizens translate into the view shared by every citizen..."

wasnt this something you were saying in another thread about the taliban issue?
i guess this can also be applied to the opinions of scientists.
 

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
onebytwo said:
"i just love it how the opinions of one or two citizens translate into the view shared by every citizen..."

wasnt this something you were saying in another thread about the taliban issue?
i guess this can also be applied to the opinions of scientists.
These scientists aren't random people being interviewed off the street, were the civilians interviewed in the Taliban thread political science professors?
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
bshoc said:
These scientists aren't random people being interviewed off the street, were the civilians interviewed in the Taliban thread political science professors?
no, the people being referred to in the taliban thread dont have to be scientists. thats not the point, you were saying that the perception of a few dont necessarily equate the perception of the whole, which i agree with. yet your not applying the same standard when it comes to this one professor and climate change.
 

bshoc

Active Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2005
Messages
1,498
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
onebytwo said:
no, the people being referred to in the taliban thread dont have to be scientists. thats not the point, you were saying that the perception of a few dont necessarily equate the perception of the whole, which i agree with. yet your not applying the same standard when it comes to this one professor and climate change.
No what I was saying was that samples of random opinion purposely drawn from non-experts should not be compared to the conclusions of experts drawn specifically down to a sole issue which has relevance to the specific field in question..

Its only taken you 2 posts both throw this discussion offtopic and lose the topic you threw it to, which makes you about as stupid and wrong as the guy in your avatar, congrats.
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
bshoc said:
No what I was saying was that samples of random opinion purposely drawn from non-experts should not be compared to the conclusions of experts drawn specifically down to a sole issue which has relevance to the specific field in question..
you dont have to be a expert to think that the taliban is good or bad for you. how many expert civilians are there in afghanistan? what are you saying that the people of a country dont know whats good for them?

bshoc said:
Its only taken you 2 posts both throw this discussion offtopic and lose the topic you threw it to, which makes you about as stupid and wrong as the guy in your avatar, congrats.
im not trying to divert the threads purpose. im trying to understand your position.
wow, thanks for putting me on the same level as Marx. ill take that as a complement
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
xXeMoxXxCoRexX said:
He never claimed that this scientist now represents a "perception of the whole".
no, but he was trying to use this scientists opinion to debunk the threat of climate change.

xXeMoxXxCoRexX said:
Furthermore, in all sciences we require only one counterexample to render a theory either invalid or needing modification. Science isn't an opinion poll.
so climate change isnt real?
 

xXeMoxXxCoRexX

you can't be half as emo
Joined
Nov 7, 2005
Messages
74
Location
on a grassy knoll, overlooking the dregs of the lu
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
What a silly question, when you pose it that way. The climate has been changing since the Earth came to be, no scientist would argue against that much.

The real question is whether we should deliberately plunge our standards of living to pre-industrial levels (as some would like to do) in the name of stopping it when we're not sure if we can anyway.
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
xXeMoxXxCoRexX said:
What a silly question, when you pose it that way. The climate has been changing since the Earth came to be, no scientist would argue against that much.
im referring to human induced climate change
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Okey dokey. Let's see the entire scientific community in agreeance with this fringe opinion, and then maybe I'll give it some weight.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Well the earth orbiting the sun was once a fringe opinion too.
Yes, and it wasn't accepted until it was properly scrutinised. Global warming has been scrutinised for about three decades now, and continues to be. Despite that, it still has overwhelming scientific support. I don't get what it is you're suggesting. :)
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
50
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Oh dear. Three decades ago the fashion was a global cooling scare.

I'm sorry but anyone who demands the entire scientific community be in agreeance before new theories or evidence are worth considering has a very poor understanding of how science works.
 

iamsickofyear12

Active Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2004
Messages
3,960
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
The most obvious conclusion is that people have caused global warming [we generate carbon emissions - carbon emissions (in theory) cause warming - we are therefore the cause of global warming] but that does not make it automatically true.

There are a number of other explanations and there are a lot of things we still don't understand about how the Earth works. I think too many people have jumped to the simplest conclusion.

And as a couple of people have already said this is not some kind of poll. There are plenty of scientists who agree that we are not the cause of global warming and just because it is not the majority doesn't mean their opinions are not valid.
 

_dhj_

-_-
Joined
Sep 2, 2005
Messages
1,562
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
iamsickofyear12 said:
The most obvious conclusion is that people have caused global warming [we generate carbon emissions - carbon emissions (in theory) cause warming - we are therefore the cause of global warming] but that does not make it automatically true.

There are a number of other explanations and there are a lot of things we still don't understand about how the Earth works. I think too many people have jumped to the simplest conclusion.

And as a couple of people have already said this is not some kind of poll. There are plenty of scientists who agree that we are not the cause of global warming and just because it is not the majority doesn't mean their opinions are not valid.
Wow I actually agree with what you said.
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I'm sorry but anyone who demands the entire scientific community be in agreeance before new theories or evidence are worth considering has a very poor understanding of how science works.
ha ha ha. Oh my no. Please state where I said that the entire scientific community be in agreeance before any new theories are considered? What? I didn't say that? Exactly. What I did say, was that before any scientific theories become the norm, or become the accepted explanation of what is happening, then they should be properly scrutinised. Global warming has been scrutinised, and despite your flawed objections, it has been around for quite some time. It's accepted now, the bulk of the worlds scientists have subjected the theory to this wild idea called, um, "peer reviewing" to the point where it has become overly-scrutinised, and yet it's still the accepted opinion. So what do we have? We have a thousand articles pointing out that global warming seems to be occuring as a result of human activity, and a few fringe articles suggesting the contrary. By no means do I believe we shouldn't consider the theories given by those fringe articles, but really, it's insane (and it's exactly what you're doing) to pretend that a few dissenting articles suddenly declare your cause the correct one.
 

onebytwo

Recession '08
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Messages
823
Location
inner west
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
now the bloody right wing bastards want to rape the environment and expect no consequences
 

Nebuchanezzar

Banned
Joined
Oct 14, 2004
Messages
7,536
Location
Camden
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
I guess because the consequences of each are vastly different. On one hand, you can not do anything about climate change and risk a vastly lesser world than you've become accustomed to. On the other hand, you can do something and provided that the climate change gang was wrong, suffer a few economic setbacks.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top