Youth Decide '09

don't forget your voice during stand up counts towards Copenhagen - Stand up - take action end poverty and climate change! www.standupagainstpoverty.com.au

i think ill pass

Jackson, you're right that there are mechanisms in the climate that are poorly understood. It is for instance a bit of a mystery as to how CO2 levels go up and down in synchrony with glacial and interglacial periods which are know to be triggered in the first instance by orbital forcing. And it's true that the IPCC recognises this. But the IPCC ... See Moreis widely considered to be quite a conservative body I wouldn't call them alarmists. Climate is incredibly complex and it's difficult to predict how it will react. But all of that aside, climate models are just that: models. They're not gospel, in fact climate scientists will be the first to tell you that they've been proven inaccurate in the past. For instance none of the IPCC models predicted that the arctic sea ice would melt to the extent that it did in 2007. But if we want to at least try to make predictions, then models are all we have. I take it that models were used for instance to predict the existence of a hot spot in the troposphere that is supposed to be a greenhouse signature. David Evans (thanks for the link) claims that "we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of global warming" because climate models predict that warming caused by greenhouse gases would cause a hotspot and the hot spot isn't there. There's an underlying assumption here that those models must be correct. Unfortunately Evans then goes on to say that "computer models..are not evidence, they are just a theory". If Evans rejects the credibility of all models outright he can't really use the lack of a greenhouse signature as proof that global warming isn't due to a greenhouse effect and he'll just have to fall back on theory (which suggests that CO2 is greenhouse gas and therefore could be a big problem for us). But Evans seems to be picking and choosing which models (or parts thereof) he'll believe and he doesn't explain his criteria for doing so. He does however use the word alarmist a lot and dismisses theories that counter his own arguments by saying 'if you believe that, you'll believe anything'. Look here
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/ and here: http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/10dr-david-evans-born-again-alarmist/
Yes there is debate over what the exact effects of global warming and climate change might be. But there IS general consensus amongst climate scientist that carbon emissions are likely to cause some sort of significant effect. Does it matter to you if some scientists disagree? If only 50% (or 20%) of scientists said to you "I'm pretty sure this gun is loaded" would you play russian roulette?

As to how movements like this can have effect, check out projects such as carrotmob.org which is basically the opposite of boycotting. Frankie magazine recently published an article on this particular project and it's successes...

Some people just feel the need to be negative!

pwnd

Guys...if your keen go to UTUBE and watch a 20min DVD titled "The Story Of Stuff"...its quite insightful to see 'how' our planet has been all but destroyed in only the last 50years! WE ARE ALL CONTRIBUTORS!! and we can all make a difference. Blessed be you x

i voted for it?

I voted!! c'mon ppl!!

Is that such a bad thing though? If they are being told by an expert what to say, the environment will benefit from this.