I'll reply to your post point by point. I've had to lump some together because I got the message, "You have posted more than the allowed number of quoted blocks of text " when trying to do them individually. I've indented & italicised your points to make the post easier to read.
Chris Lloyd said:
So what is global warming exactly?
Is it climate change in general or is it a measurable increase in temperature based on increased Co2 emmissions?
Your average non scientific member of the public would say that our climate is a diverse system that fluctuates and undulates in an unpredictable way.
In fact, there is a very wide and confused cross-section of non-scientific public opinion. You only need to read the posts on WUWT, the Guardian or Daily Mail to see that.
Your average climate scientist would argue that it is because of increasing levels of Co2 that are turning up the thermostat of our planet (that's for John).
Now, here lies the problem. Firstly, can we prove it. I won't even attempt to answer that.
I will. Science does not work as an adversarial system like a court of law does, which is just as well as adversarial systems depend to an extent on the performing abilities of their adversaries! Using a phrase like "this proves that...." in a scientific paper should never pass peer-review. Science works via the weight of evidence, which is not proof, as either used in Law or in Pure Maths.
Secondly, if we can prove it what can we do about it. I will answer that.
Our planet is now populated at a level that cannot sustain itself. The population has increased exponentially over a very short period of time. The levels of poverty are higher than they have ever been, we have financial crisis after financial crisis and the level of unrest in the world is currently higher than I have ever witnessed.
Indeed, quite right thus far.....
Whilst all this is going on we have a group of scientists who seek only to determine the effect of all that on the temperature of the planet.
When I put things into perspective it makes the science of global warming a joke. An increase in temp that is still currently only 0.6 degrees above CET is irrelevant.
I haven't come across many climate scientists whose research has tied climate change's causes as economic crises and/or unrest. From my reply above, it follows that you are confusing climate science with political and humanitarian sciences. BTW - over 2C in the Arctic already. Always look north for the canary in the coal mine!
Not much point discussing a warmer planet when we are all killing ourselves and ruining this planet.
It's part of a bigger problem that has a multi-faceted nature - overpopulation and thoughtless consumerism in turn lead to resource depletion and climate destabilisation, which in combination do a neat job of depopulation.
The problem with our species is we don't understand the concept of moderation, sharing, saving now for the sake of the future or any other analogies that you care to discuss.
Sure. Well, some do - but many don't.
Give you an example, and the banker's would do well to adopt this philosophy. I have been watching the holly tree in our garden over winter.
All those birds with brains the size of pea's, leave the berries on the tree because they may need them in harder times. A contingency plan let's call it. That bird knows that those berries will be there when it returns in colder weather. Is that bird also smart enough to know that the other birds will also leave them on the same basis - maybe so.
And the consumer would advocate clear-felling the trees, putting a Tesco on the spot and selling berries to other consumers flown in weekly from New Zealand, in the name of Freedom of Choice! Birds are well smart by comparison because they still have to consider outcomes.
The human's way of thinking is "That's there, so I'll have that" Just like the banker's, wallowing in huge bonuses while things are good, but without making contigency plans for leaner times.
And this is our dilemma - for such an advanced species we are not actually that advanced at all. We are greedy, want more than everyone else, want the same amount of energy available to us per capita as any other nation. To live as long as everyone else. To have 2.4 children etc, etc, etc.
Indeed. Consumerism has allowed us to stop thinking about where the food we eat comes from, for example, to the extent that I have met children who do not know that apples come from trees. But the massive upsurge in grow-your-own is raising awareness in the right direction: we were not always so and can return to pre-consumerist days again with care.
It comes down to energy supply vs demand and food supply vs demand. Anything else is irrelevant. The fact that the planet may be 1 or 2 degrees warmer - in my opinion, so what, it doesn't even register with me.
Whether it registers or not at the moment is not that important. If we go to 4C warmer, I think it won't just be registering it will be screaming in everybody's face. The reason being that such a shift - through regional effects - is capable of making areas of Earth's surface uninhabitable to humans.
Fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and running out - we won't have to worry about Co2 emmissions before long, because there won't be any.
So what do we try and do. We all go eco. I know, let's build a wind farm or a tidal barrier, or put solar panels on the roof of every house on the planet.
It doesn't scratch the surface, becaue for every wind farm or any other example the population will increased such that it will make no difference. It may reduce the load, but it won't provide a permanent solution.
Oil may be on a bumpy peak plateau, but coal, gas, sands and shales are nowhere near a decline. WRT renewables, they can make a difference if done with a localised economy in mind - i.e. community projects, but first, the sense of community needs to be rebuilt. Consumerism has savaged it.
My solution - instead of wasting money paying climate scientists to prove a theory, spend the money on investment in nuclear energy (fusion). Educate our school kids about economics and sustainability. Teach them about recycling and the environment. I am sure there are many other examples.
As for the population - well, that will sort itself out eventually. It won't be because of a conscious decision that we make. There's only so much organic material on the planet - it is not a bottomless pit.
Climate science takes a teeny amount of scientific funding, plus see my notes about proof above. Nuclear fusion is being researched but has so far been a pipe-dream. We cannot safely assume this will change - techno-fantasy is a dangerous thing to commit ones entire future to as a species. We do increasingly educate kids about the things you list: these will be the survival-skills of future generations.
There are two ways we can go. Carry on party-binging until we slam into the buffers or reign-in our habits - including breeding, although remember that if nobody breeds then humans become extinct in any case!
For me, after putting all that into context, global warming is somewhere at the bottom of the list in order or importance. It is nothing but a possible symptom of us destroying our planet through greed.
That is the Achile's heel of any argument that a climate scientist can ever put forward. And on that basis, this thread will probably have a very limited life span on here. it won't change anything however. 
"Nothing but" is a bit of an understatement, to put it mildly, since it looks likely that it will lead directly to the sixth of the great mass-extinctions! Note that many past mass-extinctions were caused by geologically abrupt climatic changes.
Most climate scientists don't tend to argue for policy, with a few notable exceptions such as Jim Hansen. They are either buried deep in their research (most I know) or buried in their research whilst fending-off the attacks that are becoming increasingly frequent - look how they went after
Katherine Hayhoe recently. Her crime? To give up time to write a chapter on climate science for a book by Newt Gingrich. The chapter was pulled after the likes of Limbaugh went off on one about it, whipping up the mob that masquerades as the Tea Party over there.
Hope that makes my position vaguely clear!!
Cheers - John
Sign In »
Register Now!
Help
