timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/e … 682887.ece
I posted this in the property section as I want to focus on the potential implications for land and property.
It is important to realise that if what Lovelock says is even half correct, land in this part of the world will become very, very expensive, i.e., Canny will turn out to be savvy after all, though not in the way that he expected.
Not much good if Canny bought along a coast though.
A 65m sea-level rise is the extreme end of what could happen. (ice-free earth)
In that scenario, you could sail up the shannon estuary, turn north and sail over the town of Ennis.
Passing the Island of the Burren to the west, you then sail over the sunken City of Galway.
Continuing North and passing by the Islands of Connemara and West Mayo, you sail over East Mayo and numerous sunken towns to emerge in the
Atlantic near Killala bay… 
I wouldn’t be getting my knickers in a twist just yet - have a read of [*Cool It * (Cool It - Wikipedia) and we’ll chat afterwards. The short version is that things regarding the environment aren’t exactly the way you may have been told they are. Yes - we are in for some change. But its highly unlikely to be catastrophic for most people.
And this is a bad thing?
In my opinioin denying Global Warming is the exact same as denying the property bubble, it’s people seeking evidence to confirm, or support what they wish were true.
So you get 100 scientests saying yes it’s real, and always the deniers drag up one scientist, usually in the employ of shell or bp who says it’s not that bad.
On the subject of global warming, Melbourne had it’s hottest day ever recorded yesterday (46.4c), records going back 150 years.
The death toll from the bushfires that swept though Victoria is at 96 and expected to rise further.
Not really anyone credible left denying it. But plenty of incredible claims from environmentalists that have no basis in reality - the earth will almost certainly be a few degrees warmer in 2100, some islands missing, some places that were previously fertile will now be deserts, but areas that are now uninhabitable will be temperate. Mankind will adapt, as always. Preventing global warming will cost a hell of a lot more than changing our societies to accomodate it.
Is the fertile soil going to move to the now temperate areas too?
The green movement really really hate scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia concept. He shows that their policies are at best irrelevant, and at worse, a damaging scam.
Superb!
Tell that to the Bangladeshi.
I agree that mankind will survive but you have to consider the cost. 75 million people would be homeless (at best) in that country alone if water levels rose only 1 meter!!
I think you misunderstand climate scientists. Most would agree that the planet will survive regardless of what mankind does. The issue is that man won’t or at least in the current numbers. He is, however, a strong proponent of nuclear energy which would put him in the same category as a majority (IMHO) of scientists. The so called environmentalists would probably disagree but don’t mix up the two categories.
Also the Gaia Hypothesis is not without it’s critics.
The Pin usually hosts critical thinkers who question the conventional consensus, so it’s a pity that so many here swallow whole the claims made by global warming zealots. There are many scientists - climatological and otherwise - who cast doubt on the so-called consensus (since when has scientific fact depended on consensus, by the way?).
Re. CO2, recent studies show that temperature increases *precede *increases in CO2, casting doubt on the ‘evil CO2’ scenario.
“…a study … (Stott 2007) that confirms CO2 increases around 1000 years after temperature rise.”
sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1143791
Has everyone forgotten that temperatures have been decreasing since 1998?
Here’s one of Google’s hits when you enter ‘global warming myths’:
"TEN MYTHS of Global Warming
MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas (“heat islands”), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas (“land use effects”)."
Let’s try to look at this subject objectively and not as a religion.
(PS: Canny is still fubared cos Atlantis couldn’t come soon enough to save him.)
(PPS: For the record, I’m in favour of all methods to develop renewable energy, reduce pollution, and preserve the environment; so if you don’t agree with this post, please try to refrain from using the ‘denier’ retort - adduce actual science instead!)
+1 
If you are serious about claiming that many scientists do not support climate change then put some figures on that word “many”.
From what I’ve looked at, the overwhelmingmajority of earth scientists are strongly in agreement over climate change
"Doran and Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 96.2% of climatologists who are active in climate research believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. "
So that 96.2% are zealots ? Time to look in the mirror I think.
Sure they all could be wrong but there is a difference between building a (contrary) hypothesis and supporting it with data and googling “global warming myths” and presenting the resulting hits as proof. Who really is swallowing the claims made by cranks and zealots?
you’re perhaps missing what we’re saying here SOIA - there is little question that the climate is changing. The important questions are
a) how much is it changing
b) what is the best solution to minimise that effect on humans
the environment is changing but its nowhere near the disaster scenario painted by many environmentalists. The other question is how we’re going to minimise that effect on us. Kyoto is a massive waste of money. If Kyoto were fully implemented (at massive massive expense) then the only effect it would have would be to delay the same amount of temperature change by a measly four years. I’m not saying lets not spent that money. I’m saying lets not p!ss it into the wind. Lets try to make that (massive amount of) money do something for us that will actually help us defend ourselves against environmental change.
Remember that 99% of finance risk managers said that the probability of a collapse in the CMO (mortgage security) market was infinitesimally small.
And their views were backed by nobel-prize-winning research and models.
It turned out to be bullshit, in case you have not noticed. So some humility is in order here.
The only thing that is 100% certain in the field of climate, is that the snake-oil remedies peddled by green opportunists are often irrelevant, costly and damaging.
These green fundamentalists try to exploit the science to promote their social control agenda.
That is the point Lovelock and Lomberg make and they are right IMO.
precisely
+1
Ha so now you want compare a soft science like Economics to a hard science like climatology.
Consensus is important not because it means they’re necessarily right but because it shifts the burden of proof. It’s no longer acceptable to say “Yeah well I’m not convinced!” of something 99% of climate scientists are convinced of - people who want to dispute the evidence need to preset counter arguments, counter evidence and superior explanations.
So far all they have is “Did you know the Earth has been cooling since 1998”, “Did you know there’s global warming on Mars and pluto too!” and silly graphs showing the percentage of Co2 as a percentage of the total atmosphere.
When they get around to disputing climate change with actual science I’ll be all ears but they’ll likely just continue selling books to the creationist demographic.
99%? references please?
And while you’re at it, let’s write off the work of every other scientist in world because “99% risk managers” were wrong about CMO. Come on! If you want to live in a world of conjecture, faith and beliefs, work away but don’t drag the rest of us back into another Dark Age where science is a dirty word
