By LUCY ORMONDE
Two things happened last Friday in Sydney. The first was that the temperature reached 45.8 degrees Celsius. The second was that my Frosty Fruit melted faster than I could eat it. And I am a pretty pacey consumer of Frosty Fruits.
Friday was Sydney’s hottest day ON RECORD. In the 150 years since people started recording temperatures, 45.8 is the highest number they’ve taken down. So it’s little wonder people were cradling Slurpees, panting out of car windows like laboradors and mainlining for water.
And Sydney wasn’t the only city that was sweltering. According to news reports, four of Australia’s 10 hottest days on record have occurred in the 2013. And it’s only January 23.
One staff member at the Bureau of Meteorology has called it the most significant heat wave in Australian history. Bushfires have been raging around the country and hundred of Australians have lost their homes and possessions. One person even lost his life.
The extreme weather has prompted politicians – and one of my delightfully helpful and informative (Read: chatty) neighbour – to kindly remind us all of the link between recent weather and climate change. “You only have to look at what’s happening with the fires around the country and the extreme heatwaves . . . to see what impact climate change is already having,” were the words from Greens leader Christine Milne.
And yet the scary thing is, so many people still fail to accept the science of climate change, making the likelihood of further political action, unlikely. Recent reports suggest that most people are becoming increasingly skeptical about whether or not climate change exists at all.
This is from The Conversation:
In many countries, surveys reveal that people are becoming less worried, and in some cases more sceptical about climate change, even while awareness of climate change is increasing.
This shift in public opinion has also been documented in Australia. A recent survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, reveals that in 2007–08, 73% of Australians stated that they were concerned about climate change, but by 2011–12 this had fallen to 57%.
Scepticism about climate change can take on many dimensions. Individuals may be unconvinced that global temperatures are increasing (trend sceptics). They may acknowledge the existence of climate change but not believe that human activity contributes to it (attribution sceptics).
Or, they may acknowledge its existence, and the role of human activity, but not believe that it is going to have any serious consequences (impact sceptics).
OK, so two things stood out for me on that list.
(a) That climate change is “too remote” for a lot of people. I take this to mean it’s difficult for people to think about an issue if they’re not coming face to face with it on a regular basis. The problem, the cause and the solution are too separate. You can read and read about melting ice caps and stranded polar bears, about the dying coral reefs and the overuse of coal power. But until that polar bear is floating on an ice sheet down your local water way, it’s difficult to make the link between climate change and how it might impact your daily life.
(b) That Australians are less concerned about climate change than there were five years ago.
If you put (a) and (b) together, it doesn’t make sense. Shouldn’t we be the most concerned about climate change? That floating polar bear is drifting CLOSER people, not further away! Has no one been reading the news recently?
It was only a few years ago that parts of Australia were subject to extreme water restrictions. At the time I remember buying a three-minute hourglass for the shower. Dam storage was low enough to make you think twice about a water-bomb fight.
We stopped washing our cars with the garden hose. Baths became a luxury. And twice a week we’d wave at the neighbours across the street as we simultaneously watered our gardens on even dates during 6 and 8am.
Looking back, it was a quite a difficult time – especially during summer. But it was also a pretty solid good lesson in the realities of climate change. Yep, nothing like a $3.46 blue sand timer stuck to the shower wall to remind you that there’s no such thing as an endless supply of drinking water.
It’s been a while since I’ve felt that in-you-face kind of climate change reality since. And I’m the first to admit that I slacked off on water saving when the Victorian Government (I hail from the great and ALWAYS HOT IN SUMMER city of Melbourne) allowed us to turn the taps on again.
But in the last few weeks, there have been two things that have brought me back there. The first was the hottest day on record. The second was an article from the US website with the most click-worthy headline I’ve read in a while. It was called ‘The End of Pasta’.
Of course I clicked. Wouldn’t any pasta lover?
But what I wasn’t expecting an article about climate change. According to The Daily Beast – and writer Mark Hertsgaard – if we don’t start acting to stop climate change, the first victim of global warming could be spaghetti bolognaise.
He writes:
Pasta is made from wheat, and a large, growing body of scientific studies and real-world observations suggest that wheat will be hit especially hard as temperatures rise and storms and drought intensify in the years ahead.
Three grains—wheat, corn, and rice—account for most of the food humans consume. All three are already suffering from climate change, but wheat stands to fare the worst in the years ahead, for it is the grain most vulnerable to high temperatures. That spells trouble not only for pasta but also for bread, the most basic food of all. (Pasta is made from the durum variety of wheat, while bread is generally made from more common varieties, such as red spring.)
“Wheat is a cool-season crop. High temperatures are negative for its growth and quality, no doubt about it,” says Frank Manthey, a professor at North Dakota State University who advises the North Dakota Wheat Commission. Already, a mere 1 degree Fahrenheit of global temperature rise over the past 50 years has caused a 5.5 percent decline in wheat production compared to what would have occurred in the absence of global warming, according to a study published by David Lobell, a professor at Stanford University’s Center on Food Security and the Environment.
Already by 2050, scientists say wheat production in many countries (including Australia) could decline by between 23 and 27 per cent. It may not lead to the absolute disappearance of pasta from the supermarket shelves but it will cause significant price rises.
And for all those who say climate change is “remote”, I hear bacon’s on the hit list too.
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Do you think about how climate change might impact your everyday life? Have you made changes to your lifestyle to be more ‘green’?




Comments
128 Comments so far
Mamamia – with posts such as this (and ones about public breast feeding, vaccination, loving your pregnancy experience/or not etc etc – where opinions are sought as to ‘yes’ or ‘no’) I would love to see a poll included before the comments. Just to give an idea as to how the majority of readers feel – a bit of a ‘snap shot’. People could vote as part of their comment. Just a thought!
loading...
And this just in, from one of the worlds leading professors in climate science no less.
‘Global warming is likely to be less extreme than claimed’, researchers said yesterday.
‘The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the Nineties. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity. We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming.’ —-Professor Terje Berntsen, University of Oslo.
Oh, but I am ignoring the science, I almost forgot.
loading...
…and of course there will be a shortage of new clothing as cotton, a very popular fibre, requires a lot of water to produce a crop.
So it’s a naked and a starving we will go !
loading...
We should be wearing hemp if we are trying to help the environment.
loading...
Agree with the comment by The Wounded Bull below.
Has this article contributed to any rational, scientific dialogue about climate change? No. Just another slew of alarmist predictions, delivered in the typically know-it-all, slightly patronizing tone, calculated to imply that those who dont buy into this alarmism are idiots.
I’m not saying climate change isn’t real. I simply don’t think the real debate should be obscured by pseudo-scientific hysteria.
loading...
Damn ! No more Weet-Bix ! The kids will have to go to school hungry !
loading...
There are other types of pasta, plus lean versions that don’t include grains.
loading...
Not only won’t we have pasta….no wheat means no flour to make bread ! You won’t be able to send the kids off to school with a pack of sandwiches for their lunch !
No flour you won’t be able make batter for your fish or bake a cake for your child’s Christening or if you prefer, naming ceremony.
No Macca’s or HJ’s buns for the burgers. No dough for the pizza bases.
It goes on.
loading...
Me too – I would say the former, as the real me is a total introvert but I can turn it on when I need to be extroverted, so those who don’t know me as well would call me very extroverted! Hence, extroverted introvert
loading...
Here’s the thing about alarmist predictions like the wheat one above. The world has warmed (at best estimates) 0.7 degrees in 100 years.
How much do you think average temperature varies in any given wheat growing region (like western Victoria) day to day, month to month, year to year. Wheat seems pretty resilient to localised variations in temp and rainfall that far far far exceed the average global increase in temp over the last 100 years that is attributed o global warming (natural + man made).
This is why I feel compelled to call out ridiculous alarmism like this.
Argue the science sure, but leave predictions like this in the fairytale books please, and keep in real.
loading...
I suppose I’ll pay for saying this, but I actually feel quite annoyed at the skeptics. I feel that it’s my world, I’m doing my best to protect it for my children and everyone else that lives on it, but there are all these people who just don’t care and are happy to see it all crash down around our ears.
Not even so much individuals, but businesses who consistently choose not to use green options, and governments who choose not to invest in clean energy technologies. We’ve had solar technology for well over 25 years. Imagine all the tons of emissions that could have been saved if we’d put a concerted effort into working on solar or wind technologies.
I want the world to stay beautiful for my kids and everyone else’s, and its utterly frustrating that so many people just want to rationalise it away – ignore the science because it’s convenient.
loading...
It’s not about “pay” but notice that you list boutique alternative energy instead of something practical. Why? You want to save the planet, right?
It’s not that people (like me) don’t *care* about the planet, it’s that we view the irrational “solutions” demanded by the alarmists as emotionally motivated symbolism likely to bankrupt us and stop progress while solving nothing at all, at all.
It’s a simple logical problem that doesn’t require belief in AGW.
IF human caused global warming is real, and a crisis, THEN boutique energy isn’t going to solve it, nor will institutionalizing anti-technology and anti-progress solve it. THEREFORE the most likely thing is that the people pushing these non-solutions don’t really believe there is a crisis.
Because even the non-believers want clean air and water and there are obvious solutions to replace fossil fuel that would provide as much cheap energy to support progress and growth as anyone could possibly want or need without putting any CO2 or pollution into the air.
The reason that people who find out more about this issue are less concerned and less alarmed is that the illogical nature of so much of it is more apparent the more you know.
loading...
“”ignore the science because it’s convenient.”
What science would that be? I can find no proof that CO2 has any measurable influence on climate whatever. Rather, I find that the warming has halted for 15-17 years (depending on what data set you use) and is just about to drop out of the low end of the 99% confidence band produced by the IPCC. In other words, their prediction has been proved wrong by observation
loading...
There’s another group of climate change skeptics you have overlooked: those who put their hip-pocket above sustaining life on our planet. These people may have a vested interest in fossil fuels, for example.
I won’t engage with climate change skeptics (regardless of why they’re skeptical). They’re as closed-minded to science as the anti-vaxxers.
loading...
You say you won’t engage climate skeptics regardless of what they have to say, because THEY are closed-minded. Lol, the Irony of that comment.
loading...
Where did I say I don’t listen to what they actually have to say, Anonymous? I listen to them, then determine what their motivation is – which you would have picked up on had you given my previous comment due consideration.
Simply, I’ve realised it’s futile to engage with them.
loading...
I’m really quite shocked to see the number of comments here which seem to be so cynical or “disbelieving” of climate change, when generally the calibre of the discussion/debate here is reasonable and smart. When there is just SO MUCH scientific evidence. Well researched, thoroughly documented evidence from reputable scientists with genuine expertise in the area. And years of relevant experience. Not only that, when year after year we read about and experience first hand an unprecedented number of significant weather “events” which are explicitly linked to changes in the earth’s climate. I struggle to understand how so many otherwise well informed people can remain sceptical in the face of such overwhelming evidence. Perhaps it is because this issue has become politicised, especially in this country at the present time, and it absolutely should not be. Whatever the reason, I despair.
loading...
I don’t find it that odd that people are skeptical. Scientists have proven the earth is over 6 billion years old, yet people still believe in creationism, instead of evolution. I find that more astounding and amusing.
loading...
It is a big leap from accepting the science to accepting the alarmist doomsday predictions that follow from every man and their dog. These are 2 separate issues often considered as ‘one and the same’
Most on here are simply critical of the emotive alarmist rubbish, like suggesting wheat is doomed and we won’t eat pasta again. Stick to science and I am all ears.
loading...
I am sorry, I am trying hard to be polite. But you are FOOLISH! Find me one scientist who paints human induced climate change as a “doomsday prediction”? You have obviously read nothing on the subject. All scientists acknowledge that the climate has changed in the past and will change again, but they have also produced unequivocal evidence to suggest that human activity is accelerating this process. It is not about a doomsday, it is about over the next few generations seeing our natural ecology destroyed and impacting on the people through resources becoming unsustainable, for example crops which may not be able to grow. This won’t happen in our lifetime, but the point scientists are trying to impress on us is that it will affect our grandchildren and great grandchildren and that is enough for me.
loading...
More name calling. Just express your point of view without being rude. It’s not that hard and is actually a prerequisite of commenting.
loading...
Lol, I feel like I have just insulted Scientology or something. Half expecting to be followed around by black 4wds with men in suits videoing me now.
loading...
Foolish is not a name, it is an adjective. If you would like to disagree with my comments then do so – but calling me out for apparent “name calling” is like dobbing. Completely unproductive.
loading...
Just like all the answers, completely unproductive. All anyone says on here is to do your own research. How about writing what you know instead of the tired old line of do some research. Put your facts on the table that you know about it, to show the skeptics like me what your on about.
loading...
A highly emotional argument there, Lucy. I always worry when the argument relies heavily on emotion.
loading...
Can I respectfully ask the point of the map. All it tells me is that, on one particular day, it was only 12 degrees in Hobart, while a large part of inland Australia had temps over 40. Can I ask, is this really so unusual and suggestive of global warming to find one January day with this pattern, or did the big red patch look like it somehow supported the whole theory of man made global warming.
This is the whole point of this argument, it is more like a religion or cult now, that demands unquestioning devotion from all, and everyone looks at images like this as some type of proof even when it is nothing of the sort.
loading...
I agree WB. As soon as anyone dares raise a single question about it, your immediately labelled a lunatic. I for one, won’t be bullied into blindly believing everything I’m told.
loading...
This is just rubbish, no one is asking you to blindly believe in anything. There is loads of research being done, you could even do your own, and the vast majority believe that climate change is not only happening but it is caused by man. All you have to do is read. Go down to the newsagent and there are a dozen different science magazines being published every month. Buy some and start reading. And if your research comes from listening to Bolt or Jones, well then you are probably right to be labeled a lunatic.
loading...
The fact that you quote “scientific studies” tells us everything we need to know. Ignorance is bliss.
loading...
“this is just rubbish”, “there’s loads of research”, “you could even do your own”, instead of bullying people and being obnoxious, realise that other people may have a different opinion to you. And who actually listens to Bolt and Jones? I certainly don’t, so what would you like to label me now? Be polite too, I’ve noticed with climate change extremists, you are all rather rude in your responses.
loading...
Opinion has nothing to do with it, that’s the problem. People think this is about opinions.
loading...
How is calling someone out on speaking rubbish “rude”? If you would like to put forward a counter argument to the science, then do so. We are all ears.
You are simply calling people rude to cover your own inability to say something on the topic that makes sense. Of course those who accept that human influenced climate change are going to be frustrated in our responses when this is what we are up against. Seriously.
loading...
All your responses have been the same too actually. Like, do some research, go to the library, read about it, get an education, your not actually presenting any facts. Tell us all about, I’m all ears.
loading...
Hi guys, good to see everyone getting into the discussion, just remember dinner party rules.
loading...
No it is not. Sure there are extremists in both camps but there is a lot of information out there and excellent work being done. Instead we see the same old tired arguments being thrown out time after time, and people are not interested in hearing the other side so we never seem to get past this point.
It is funny that so many skeptics won’t listen to or believe in anything scientist say but believe without question the rubbish they see on those emails which do the rounds frequently, or something they read in an Andrew Bolt column.
I don’t have a problem with people disagreeing with the current consensus, as long as they are making an informed decision, from studying a number of sources.
loading...
We won’t be able to eat wheat regardless of climate change. The longer everyone ignores what is really happening to our food, we will be left with no choice but to eat food full of roundup and which is GM.
This is the biggest problem on our planet today. You are probably already feeding your kids foods which are unsafe.
Monsantos move into Indian Agriculture has already caused up to 250,000 suicides. Read Seeds of Suicide.
West Australian farmer Steve Marsh is involved in an unprecedented legal battle with a neighbouring farmer for GM contamination with Monsanto seeds.
Yeah, be afraid. Be very afraid.
loading...
Exactly right. There needs to be more discussion in mainstream media about the dangers of genetically-modified foods (GMO).
loading...
Here’s an interesting one from The Australian:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/an-inconvenient-truth/story-e6frg6z6-1226556153378
(That link should bypass the paywall – sorry if it doesn’t!)
loading...
When you stuff around with nature no good can come from it.
French researchers secretly conducted a study of rats who were fed a diet of 33% Monsanto gmo corn. The results were terrible. The rats all developed cancerous tumors. I for one don’t want to take that chance with my loved ones. If it wasn’t a problem why would KFC advertise they are not using Australian GM canola.
I don’t know where you stand on this but it really does scare the hell out of me.
loading...
Absolutely there should be discussions about GMO’s, but I think it should explore the advantages as well as dangers
loading...
Ella, I am genuinely curious as to the advantages of GMO’s.
loading...
One start might be to read the link posted above.
Genetic engineering of crops is done to improve a specific feature of a crop. Some of these improvements may lead to increased productivity or reduced input expenses for growers.
While I am no fan of the Monsanto approach, as a former agricultural scientist I have to say that much of the fear of genetic engineering of crops is anti-science, in the same vein as the anti vaccination lobby. It has a tendency to ignore rational facts and genuine scientific understanding and is based more on emotion and fear of something you don’t understand.
loading...
I did read the link and I still don’t see how it shows it’s safe. Pigs fed GM corn had massive numbers of phantom pregnancies and bulls at dairy farms suffered sterility problems. The US is years ahead of us with this and we should learn from their mistakes.
loading...
For some reason can’t reply to your posts below, anyway I watched part one on youtube- thank you for telling me about it!
I needed to watch this, although the lawyer from Washington irked me- I disagree with his emphasis on the failures of genetic engineering (while valid, they were a little outdated and overlooked the successes). But I needed to be reminded just how far reaching the consequences are for organic farmers, I study science- and sometimes forget what this means for them.Unfortunately companies like Monsanto, who are so awful, give a bad name for the science in general. We still have a loooong way to go with this issue for sure
Anyway I enjoyed discussing this with you, I have seen arguments on here completely blow up/get personal etc. We make pretty good dinner party guests hey? Have a great day!
loading...
Being able to grow modified crops that can yield under harsher weather environments/ increase productivity levels/ increased nutritional content is among the advantages, especially as others above and below have pointed out that current crop productivity vs. world population growth is a serious issue.
I do agree that there is some dangers to certain GMO’s- you’re right there. But that’s the beauty about this sort of science, it’s forever improving! I’m just one for balanced arguments and I think people need to be given all the information to make their own mind up
If you’re interested there are some great examples of useful GMO’s out there to look up, Black sigatoka resistant bananas in Uganda and bio-fortified Golden Rice come to mind.
loading...
Thanks for that Ella. The two examples you gave me seem a lot less alarming than what Monsanto is doing. They are working towards having a monopoly on seeds,which in turn are engineered to withstand heavy doses of roundup. We had a farm and my dad got roundup on a scratch on his elbow. For a while doctors thought they would have to amputate. This is why it scares me that a chemical company is messing with our food.
loading...
It looks like my response from earlier got lost…ah well :/
GMO’s can afford higher crop yield/ increased tolerance to harsher weather conditions/increased nutritional content, in the context of third world countries this is highly advantageous.
Examples that come to mind is the black sigatoka resistant bananas in Uganda and bio-fortified Golden Rice.
I highly recommend Jimmy’s GM Food Fight, if you haven’t watched it already, I think you will find it interesting
He gives a balanced perspective to this issue.
loading...
I watched it and would love if you would watch GMO Trilogy-Hidden dangers in kid’s meals. Genetically engineered foods, even just part one. If you do I would love to hear your take on it.
loading...
Thanks Ella for your last comment. I have enjoyed our discussion and learnt some GMO’s aren’t as bad as others. I still don’t like them. They scare me. I’ll keep reading though.
loading...
I think climate change can be compared to putting a frog in cold water and heating up slowly and the frog dies because it doesn’t realise the water is heating up. We are the frogs in this case.
We haven’t had quite the extremes in temp in Brisbane but damn, it’s been a dry hot summer, in the semi tropics too. Up until Thursday of course.
We have a well insulated house, with solar hot water and electricity. Our water usually comes from the sky and our septic tanks have meant that I’m very conscious of what I put down the sink. Living a distance from the shops also means you don’t just trot down there with no excuse either.
I don’t know that enough people are changing their habits to make much of a difference yet. I hope so.
loading...
You do know the frog thing is a myth, right?
A frog in slowly heating water jumps out.
A frog put in boiling water dies because it destroys its legs, it can’t jump out.
But I definitely agree with what you’re saying.
loading...
Well, I haven’t actually tried doing that to any frogs, nor have I heard of anyone actually doing it (including myth busters), but I still like the and frogs. I guess if you live with a baby you don’t see how much they change over time, but someone else who hasn’t seen them for a few moths will. Maybe that’s a better analogy.
loading...
omg now I’m picturing horrible people boiling frogs
loading...
Sorry.
loading...
I believe the climate is changing. But I dont believe humans have that much impact on the climate that we can control it.
I always try to be envrionmentally friendly- recyling, water usage etc.
Just because I dont believe in the human involvement in climate change- doesnt mean I cant be environmentally responsible
loading...
Can I ask why you don’t believe that human activity impacts the climate? You do realise that in the last 100 years, the world population has grown by nearly 6 billion right? You know all about how much carbon is emitted into the atmosphere every year right? And you know the hole in the ozone layer is real and documented, as are the severe reduction of ice in the arctic and antarctic regions, yes?
Glad you still try to be environmentally friendly anyway though
loading...
Anyone that mentions the ozone hole with respect to this debate instantly blows all cred sorry.
loading...
Well I have no interest in arguing with you anyway, WB, since you seem to profess to know better than the scientists in this debate.
loading...
Why?
loading...
The earth has changed climates for millions of years. It will probably look very different in the next million years. To simply look at the last 100 years and the changes in that small amount of time doesnt make much sense.
loading...
You didn’t answer my question though. Why would you think humans are not having any impact, or moreover what makes you believe the research is wrong? Why do you think you know better?
loading...
You do know that huge amounts of gasses are released into the atmosphere from the ground don’t you. Huge amounts. What’s released into the atmosphere when volcanos erupt, only huge amounts of poisonous gasses. Vast underground stores of methane gas erupt all the time. The earth changes constantly. Changes in climate have been happening for eons. Eons!
loading...
you asked why I didnt believe in human impact. Well I answered your question.
Do I know there are more people and there is a hole in the ozone layer? sure.
I never said the research is wrong. Im simply saying the 0.0000000001% of time we have researched this compared to the life of earth itself makes statistics irrelevant. if the earth is millions of years old- what is 100 years?
also, i never said i know better, im having my opinion. Which im pretty sure youre allowed on mamamia no?
loading...
If you had any education on this topic, you’d know that they have much more than 100 years worth of data on these trends. That’s what paleontologists do. Maybe you should actually read some research before commenting, because the research is quite clear now that human activity has affected the climate quite separately to the cyclical shift in climate we have seen in the past. But you still haven’t answered my question after all this. WHY is it that you believe humans have not affected the climate????? The climate changing in the past is not an answer. Why do you believe that the amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere is not affecting the natural make-up of the earths atmosphere and allowing more heat to be trapped? Why do you not believe the science on this? Quite clearly you do not have an answer. You are allowed an opinion, but I am allowed to question it too.
loading...
I really don’t think there is any need to respond with such snarkyness is there? Since you are big on research and education, Maybe you should do some research on polite responses to other peoples comments before you actually respond.
loading...
I just said I dont know better but Im stating my opinion. If you arent satisfied with my answers I dont actually care. Im not here to change anyones opinion or push my own. If you have a problem with my answers then that is your problem.
loading...
I’m shocked that the carbon tax hasn’t fixed all of this.
loading...
Comment of the day! Lol
loading...
That’s such a tired old line. The carbon tax is about encouraging the market to invest in clean energy (renewables) instead of dirty energy (coal). And it seems to be working; “Carbon emissions from the electricity sector have dived in the first six months under the carbon tax, with much greater use of renewable energy and cutbacks in consumption.” (David Uren, The Australian, 23 Jan 2013)
loading...
I agree. Carbon tax isn’t a short term fix. It’s about changing long term behaviour and investment. I’m glad it’s been introduced.
loading...
1. Australia has been having some nasty heatwaves.
2. Russia has been having coldwaves.
3. There hasn’t been a rise in world temperatures for over fifteen years, according to NASA, UK Bureau of Meteorolgy etc. ie Global warming has “paused”. Google this, don’t take my word for it.
I am 100% in favour of taking better care of our earth, protecting endangered species, looking for increasing viability of renewable energy, monitoring population growth, implementing better agricultural methods etc – BUT there is an awful lot of misinformation coming through the media.
We need to have the right information on influential sites like this – less of the scaremongering and more consideration of facts.
loading...
15 years is too short a period to predict a trend. It is stats and misinformation like this that is used by ‘sceptics’ to try and con people. You need to look at at least 50 years and preferably 100 or more and the trend is pretty clear.
loading...
I believe in climate change. And even if I am wrong, well, I think that I’d rather take action now and discover I was wrong later, than do nothing and discover that the climate change deniers were wrong later.
My airconditioning broke down last November. I decided not to get it fixed, since I felt our family had been becoming too “soft” and running it too much. So I thought we would return to the “olden days” for this summer and see how we went. The 40 degree heatwave was bloody awful. But all in all, it’s been ok. And the real bonus – my electricity bill this January was $600 less than my electricity bill last January.
loading...
You can’t “believe” in climate change. You believe in a God, which requires faith, because there’s no physical evidence.
Here, there is physical evidence, so it’s just ignorance or not ignorance.
Congrats on the $600
loading...
Actually, climate change IS a theory. There is considerable amount of evidence that leads many people to conclude that the theory is correct. Or, as some would say ‘believe” or “not believe”.
Don’t be disheartened by this. Evolution is also a “theory”; it has even more evidence to support it, but unfortunately many people don’t “believe” it either (I’m looking at you, Mr mid-western USA).
Neither evolution or climate change can be proved (the way, say, gravity can be proved); therefore they are theories and it’s not incorrect to say one believes or disbelieves in them.
But it’s just terminology.
loading...
Evolution is not a theory, it’s a fact. The people who like to downplay the science of Evolution, are the god fearers.
loading...
Yes, it is important to remember the scientific definition of theory when it is applied to things like evolution, is entirely different to the colloquial definition. Confusion like this, English language I blame you
is often used by con artists to try and prove their non-points.
loading...
Evolution is a theory – it is the best science has, but we have not been able to prove it yet, so it isn’t a law. It is called Evolution theory because, although it is almost certainly true, it has not been proven beyond certainty. If and when that happens it will become a law, (like for example, the laws of physics).
loading...
Gravity is also a theory too, technically. I’d like to see someone try and disprove it, though!
loading...
Tallulah – who says I believe in god?
Sorry if my use of terminology offended. I figured that most of the people who read my comment would know what I meant by it.
loading...
I believe the climate changes – it always has. The world has warmed a little so it’s no surprise we had a couple of hot days.
None of the alarmist scientists would have a job if they said we didn’t have a problem – average temperatures haven’t warmed for 16 years so it’s now 100% clear their computer models exaggerate warming. Human’s have contributed but there are a lot of natural factors at play too.
Many well respected climate scientists don’t believe humans are causing dangerous climate change.
Even if humans are causing dangerous global warming, there is zero chance of stopping China and India from industrialising, so rather than squandering all our money on delaying climate change by a week or so, we should spend the money adapting to a slightly warmer future (which will bring just as many benefits as problems).
loading...
Where are these so called respected scientists that don’t believe that humans are impacting climate change? The science on this is very near unanimous in the last few years.
loading...
You say yourself “near unanimous”, so you obviously know some scientists don’t agree. Do some research yourself, and you can find those that don’t believe the human impact is significant enough to cause the climate to change.
loading...
Actually that is not true…. There are plenty of “alarmist scientists” working in the oil and gas industry, who will be out of a job if we take action to reduce emissions!
loading...
Well, the climate is changing, always has and always will. The contribution from man to this is the issue at hand.
Sorry to sound so sceptical, but I am old enough to remember the scientists predicting that we were heading to another mini ice age in the 70s. That, along with Y2k, the prediction we would run out of oil by year 2000 etc etc. nothing sells papers, gets click rates up or secures government grants better than the maximum doom scenario.
loading...
We were actually due to go into another cold period then, but the greenhouse effect has prevented that. Read a paper on it (can’t quote preferences) and it sounded plausible, like many other things can.
loading...
I heard an IT expert saying that they hate the way people use the Y2K scenario to illustrate arguments in the way you have. He was saying that the reason that it didn’t end up a disaster was because a lot of people worked really hard to create fixes and then implemented them in time. Not because there was no problem to begin with.
loading...
Yeah, it’s not like IT consultants had a vested interest in spreading fear of what ‘might’ happen or anything. Come now, my best mate was one of them, and milked it for all it was worth at the time, as did most others. He was the Tim Flannery of the Y2k scene.
loading...
Well, backed up with the ‘best mate’ evidence then you must be right! Honestly, I don’t know, as I said, I heard this guy, who and where I can not even remember. I just thought it was interesting. I am not passionate about the Y2K thing one way or the other. But I do have to say, I work in the Division of Research of one of the leading Universities and I won’t accept what you said about government grants. If you think that researchers just pop their hand up with a doomsday theory and get thrown a bunch of money then you are very wrong. It shows a total lack of knowledge of the process. Securing grant funding is an excruciating process. I’m sure in line with your conspiracy theories I simply have a vested interest and therefore you will discount what I am saying, and that’s totally cool. But on that one, I absolutely do know what I am talking about!
loading...
Worked for tim flannery.
loading...
I just typed a big response but my page refreshed so I will post a quote from the Wikipedia page on ice ages instead of retyping. In short there are climatic cycles related to longer wavelength cycles, eg Milankovitch cycles as well as “interference” from other influences such as anthropogenic forcing.
“The Earth has been in an interglacial period known as the Holocene for more than 11,000 years. It was conventional wisdom that the typical interglacial period lasts about 12,000 years, but this has been called into question recently. For example, an article in Nature[34] argues that the current interglacial might be most analogous to a previous interglacial that lasted 28,000 years. Predicted changes in orbital forcing suggest that the next glacial period would begin at least 50,000 years from now, even in absence of human-made global warming[35] (see Milankovitch cycles). Moreover, anthropogenic forcing from increased greenhouse gases might outweigh orbital forcing for as long as intensive use of fossil fuels continues.[36]“
loading...
I think we should be worried in so far as the human influence on climate change, but natural ecological climate change is something that we can do little about barring adapting how we live and use the planet in response to that change. The planet has gone through many climate changes since it’s creation and will continue to do so long after we (probably) wipe ourselves out.
loading...
That is Chrystal Renn eating pasta. Not Robyn Lawley.
loading...
Do I know enough about science to definitively agree with climate change scientists? No. Both sides of the debate seem to put forward what look to my non scientific brain convincing science.
Do I think the world would probably be better off if we stopped pumping so much crap into the atmosphere and reduced our reliance on fossil fuels? Yes. I don’t need to be a scientist to be convinced of that.
loading...
You simply can’t take individual, localised weather events and use them as proof Lucy. At the same time we are sweltering, the UK is having record cold. The last most significant heat wave in Australia was in the 30s, when Australia suffered from the Black Friday fires. If climate change was a theory back then, no doubt they would have been pointing to that heat wave as proof as well.
The older you get Lucy, you realise 2 things. Firstly, things tend to happen in cycles, and what young people think of as never happened before usually has. Secondly, you learn that mankind loves to scare itself senseless with alarmist doomsday predictions. While warming may well be a reality, the alarmists that overstate everything and predict that the sky is falling only have the effect of distancing moderate realists from the debate.
loading...
‘The older you get Lucy’ What a condescending reply. There is so much evidence to support what Lucy has written about. Sceptics now just sound really really ignorant.
loading...
Here is the problem with the debate. Unless you agree with every horrific doomsday prediction and misled example of isolated events that somehow constitute proof, you are labelled a denier and ignorant. Please point out anything in my comment that is factually incorrect before calling me ignorant.
loading...
You comment doesn’t mention any facts only some very general opinions, so not really possible to dispute. I will make my own general opinion, getting older does not mean you are any wiser. Try and disprove it.
loading...
Getting older means you live to see umpteen doomsday predictions come to little or nothing. When you are young, you think it is the first time in history someone has been saying we are doomed.
loading...
You’re presuming that younger people are basing their opinions on their own personal observations & experiences and nothing more. Younger people know who to read and how to research. I think it’s patronising to say “when you’re older you’ll realise….”
And no, I’m not Gen Y, I’m a mature Gen X.
loading...
No you don’t.. a two second google search can tell you facts about every doomsday prophecy in history. Age has no relevancy to that. Young people aren’t stupid enough to think that if it’s happened to them it’s the first time it’s ever happened.
loading...
My issue is with overstated alarmist predictions. Have a look at Tim Flannerys predictions from several years back re water, sea level, snow at ski resorts etc. And this is our climate commissioner paid handsomely via your and my taxes. This article continues the tradition with the ‘no pasta in the future’ statement.
loading...
This is why it is call Climate change and not Global warming. Yes Climate change is mainly about warmer temperatures on average in the future but the change in the atmosphere will also cause many more extreme events such as flooding and cold snaps.
Yes things happen in cycles, but records show that what is happening now is more extreme than anything that has happened in the past. The past has been recorded in geological features for thousands of years not to mention ice cores taken from antarctica and the arctic. We are not just talking about the recorded history of humans.
loading...
Yes but why shouldn’t we just take better care of environment and curb our emissions anyway?
If climate change doesn’t exist do you think people are going to be like “DAMN IT! I spent all that time recycling. What a waste!”.
loading...
While I was visiting universities, I had the awful misfortune to sit in on an Environmental Science / Global Warming Alarmist class.
On one slide, I noticed a graph – and what nobody else seemed to get – that this is indeed cyclical. It was a graph of average global temperatures. Throughout the ‘recorded’ average temperatures, there were several periods of global temperatures rising, then falling into an Ice Age. It happened several times.
I asked the professor why we should be alarmed, when this “global warming” has CLEARLY – and, as shown by his OWN evidence – happened before in the past, multiple times, and will happen again.
The professor, unsurprisingly, just stood there flabbergasted. He had no answer. A high school student had basically destroyed his entire lecture in front of his college class.
loading...
ICB
loading...
Flabbergasted or frustrated? If I had a dollar for every time I got asked the same tired old questions I wouldn’t have to go to work.
it frustrates me that so many sceptics don’t bother doing any research of their own. There are plenty of excellent websites which explain the current thinking, realclimate is one
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
To try and answer your question simply – not day to do in a few words while contending with this annoying autocorrect on my phone which is driving me crazy – yes the climate has varied in the past.
Climate has varied a lot over geological history and there are different orders of events, long period changes (hard to explain without a diagram), short period events and “random” or catastrophic events.
Volcanic eruption is an example of this. The Permian mass extinction is thought by many to be a climate change event. Another is the Toarcian anoxic event – one I find extremely useful in my work- they make my job much easier!
The point is that the climate changes, usually for a reason, this time it is very likely we are the reason.
loading...
Of course there have been cycles of global warming and cooling throughout the history of the earth. No-one is denying that. One of the issues with global warming this time is the RATE of the warming, and the inability of the natural world to adapt quickly enough. Anyone can see we are getting more extremes – heat, cold, drought and storms. My bulbs flowere much earlier than usual. Spring and autumn used to be distinct seasons now is really is just a wobbly summer and winter. Things have definitey changed!
loading...
LOL do you seriously think you know more than a UNIVERSITY professor who specialises in global warming?? I can’t believe how arrogant you sound! He was properly shocked at how rude you were to interrupt and annoyed at your ignorance.
loading...
And the hole in the Ozone layer is a natural phenomenon? Yeah right…
loading...
Did you just hop out of the Delorian. Don’t forget to turn the flux capacitor off.
loading...
How can people at this stage still talk about this topic and continue to think it’s all just about things getting hotter, therefore things getting colder proving everything wrong?
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
loading...
True, however as this article (and many others) suggests people are less interested in addressing global warming as it is a complex topic with trend analysis and long-term forecasting seemingly too remote for many people. However, people do tend to respond with interest to the issue when possible impacts can be directly related to themselves. Problem then is that doing this leaves authors such as Lucy open to critiscism from deniers about their absolutism in linking such events to human induced global warming. I don’t have an answer to this dilemma, but is one I think about a lot.
loading...
I was just pointing out how you can’t point to selective localised events to prove anything. I was not suggesting that, because it is cold in Europe that proves anything in isolation either, but alarmists have a habit of locking in on individual events that support their position while ignoring the ones that don’t.
loading...
So do sceptics… As you have proven in most of your comments so far
loading...
I only use the Europe example to show how localised events prove nothing, and how alarmists only ever site the type of local events that support their cause.
loading...
Yes it is a little simplistic to use an individual weather event, or even just temperature as proof of anthropogenic global warming but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.
It is a lot more complex than that. People always seem to jump on the extreme cold events in Europe as proof there is no warming. What they fail (or likely don’t wish to) understand is that the system is a lot more complex than that.
The problem is that the warming doesn’t just heat up the whole world but disrupts the “equilibrium” for want of a better word. It doesn’t take a lot of warming to effect for example the northern permafrost. The knock on effect is oceanic currents are effected, which then effects weather systems. Even this is still a bit simplistic but the point is the small changes and the knock on effect.
The other thing people tend to ignore is the importance of rate of change of temperature not absolute temperature. The key point being that we are seeing a high rate of change of temperature. In the geological record ecosystems do adjust to climate change but when the rare of change is too fast we get extinction events.
I am not an alarmist in that I think the world is going to end as a result of climate change but we are damaging the environment and changing the climate and we need to do something about it or we will lose many fragile ecosystems and put at risk many many vulnerable countries.
It is sad that so many privileged westerners are so selfish when it comes to taking care of our planet ( and i include myself as one of them).
loading...
Hasn’t the record cold temps in Europe got something to do with an increase in cold air being pushed down from the melting ice cap? Ie these cold temps are related to global warming?
loading...
Well man made global warming is responsible for everything else, may as well add unusually cold weather to the list.
loading...
Ever heard of the gulf stream/north atlantic current?. When that got a rush of fresh water about 10,000 years ago, it stopped the movement of salty and warm water around the world and threw Europe into another ice age. Isnt it just possible that given its happened naturally in the past that it could happen again?
loading...
Oh, it happened naturally in the past you say. Ok.
My logic tells me that man made global warming and Europe ending up in an ice age are kind of incompatible, but it obviously works for you.
loading...
OK, so clearly my last response wasn’t polite enough to get through mods. I’ll try it this way.
I urge you to look this phenomenon up for yourself. If you don’t know it exists then you haven’t read much about climate change. A cold Europe as a result of global warming is just part of the knock on effect.
loading...
I saw a documentary a few years ago which suggested that, as the planet warms and the ice caps melt, there will be a change in the salinity levels of the oceans. One effect of this would be to slow the Gulf Stream and that would lead to North America and Europe having much more severe winters. So yes, the cold temps are related to global warming.
loading...
When it is hot it proves global warming, when it is cold it proves global warming. The only thing that will disprove it is a totally static, perfect weather scenario for ever more, like you get in telly tubby land.
loading...
critical de-salination point. Sounds like The Day After Tomorrow lol
loading...
Groan! Telly tubby arguments and movie allusions to refute a point! Classic nonsense! I saw that doco too. It made sense.
loading...
It wasn’t an argument. I am accept human induced climate change. It just made me think of the movie cos I love it haha
loading...
Fair enough Lucinda! Your point is taken! Have a good night!!! You were not the person annoying me. the wounded bull was.
loading...