francescoassisi

The world has been hotter .... and humans weren't there.

The world has been colder ..... and humans weren't there.

Why would anyone think the cycle wasn't entirely natural, and humans not relevant to that cycle?

The real problem is, climate change has replaced (become) a religion in many people's lives.

You can't argue with religion, as you need faith, and unbelievers need to be killed or repressed in some way.

See the similarity

God is angry with us, we must stop our evil ways.

Climate is changing, we need to stop burning fossil fuels.

Inadvertently you've hit the nail right on the head. The whole point about climate change is that we are well aware that there have been changes before but THIS TIME THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES and these lead us to conclude that the changes are in fact man made.

I have to say you seem to be arguing your point of view from a position of little knowledge of even the most basic info on CC.

You can't cherry pick your science...

What a great quote. You're right of course, one can't cherry pick the science he believes in, but they do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world developing techniques and medicines aimed at making people live healthier lives. Do we believe in the science? Yes, conveniently so, most of us do. You have the best, most dedicated and intelligent scientists in the world studying climate change. Do we believe in the science? Many of us don't. It is kind of mystifying to me the level of trust we have in these scientists, and then when it happens to be convenient for us, the level of distrust we have in the science.

I have never understood why climate change is a left/right issue myself. Anybody ever thought of that? Why in the world do conservatives just so happen to deny climate change, while most all of those to the left accept the science? Perhaps this is the more important question.

Many of you arguing that the science doesn't lie. My question is what science? There is a theory that CO2 is causing temperature increases. The scientific method is to test your theory by using it to make predictions. That was done 15 years ago and the predictions were all wrong. No catastrophic sealevel rises, no increase in global temperatures, no increase in extreme weather events, no complete loss of glaciers, no complete loss of arctic sea ice etc. etc.

Still no news of that tiger case????

There are probably GW deniers who take glee in revving up their large fossil fuel engines just for the rush of knowing they're being naughty.

You may be right, though most skeptics I know have moved beyond the Play-Doh stage of seeing the world as either "naughty" or "nice".

There's a serious point to my post -- Weepy Bill is not just a nobody in the climate debate; he is the founder of a multi-million dollar organisation called 350.org, whose stated aim is to initiate global action to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels to 350ppm.

The only people he is going to impress by bursting into tears at the sight of a chunk of coral are those who already share his apocalyptic viewpoint; everyone else is going to be faintly embarrassed at the sight of an adult behaving this way.

That extends to the wider problem of communication, as a recent paper in the European Journal of Social Psychology notes:

"Despite recognizing the need for social change in areas such as social equality and environmental protection, individuals often avoid supporting such change. We .. [found] that individuals resist social change because they have negative stereotypes of activists, the agents of social change. Participants had negative stereotypes of activists (feminists and environmentalists), regardless of the domain of activism, viewing them as eccentric and militant."

Exactly. Weepy Bill is his own worst enemy; he may have relevant points to make about climate, but nobody apart from his cronies listens because of his name-calling, arrogance, and absurd grandstanding gestures.

He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage.

"He's not alone; the entire militant Green movement relies on many of the same methods, which is a good part of why they get nowhere, to their enduring frustration and rage."

What you should have said is "...why they get nowhere anymore...". It used to work, and it still does with some, but increasing numbers of people have woken up to the emotional blackmail to which the fanatics pushing their own agenda resort. It's becoming the new 'Godwin's Law' that as soon as you hear 'But think of the cheeeldren..." you know that there is no scientific justification for whatever follows or precedes it, and that you are being scammed.

The hornet thing is really no more than a furphy.it is the science that is important. The problems arising from the hornets is minuscule compared to the international conflict that will arise from displaced populations migrating from rising sea levels and the number one issue - water.

The hornets make a good story (like a 50s sci-fi B-movie) but that's about it - this story hits the papers every few years and may or may not be a symptom of man-made climate change - it is certainly a result of increased land use for agriculture or other development. I believe also that these particular hornets make their nests in low bushes, just above the ground and are therefore very susceptible to being kicked by people who have entered their ara - normally in the process of opening up new lkand for agriculture or building. Chinese are famous for their massive new city-building projects so I wouldn't be at all surprised if it wasn't connected to something like that.

The information comes directly from the EU's Website in September 2013:

Under the 2014-2020 EU budget, support for climate activities through all major EU funding programmes including agriculture, regional development, and the Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme - will be increased to at least 20% of overall spending. The new LIFE climate sub-programme will help to 'mainstream' climate action into the budget, while adding value by addressing the specific needs of climate projects.

That equates to 192 billion euros (US$260 billion) over 7 years. As for the WWF complaining, well, that's what they do.

Basically you are putting forward the kind of argument that would say a black cat is pink because that's the color of it's anus.......try to see the whole picture, drop the conspiracy theories and then leap into the 21st century.

Worth every Euro, despite the bad targeting of which some posters appear to know nothing.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/sep/27/ipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change?CMP=EMCENVEML1631&et_cid=51265&et_rid=11137&Linkid=http%3a%2f%2fwww.theguardian.com%2fenvironment%2f2013%2fsep%2f27%2fipcc-world-dangerous-climate-change

Before people go blathering on about "20% of EU budget" they might get the info right and look at the other takes on this -http://www.rtcc.org/2013/02/08/wwf-eu-budget-a-bad-deal-for-the-climate/

Some people seem to think that proponents of climate change theory are unaware of previous cycles of change on the planet. This is obviously a ridiculous assumption. What these posters seem unaware of and the researchers bare very aware of is that the current changes are significantly different enough from any previous events to warrant a different interpretation.....I.e. That they are man made.

Generalisation? The point is I can't actually see that anyone knows how to put forward an opinion or argument on this thread. Their premises are so wide of the mark in most cases that there isn't ban tuning to argue. You can't argue with nonsense. And calling for specifics is just a joke on a thread that has descended into a comical and profoundly ignorant debate about hornets how daft can you get?

If there was the slightest notion of the arguments against climate change they haven't appeared on this thread.... It's just too farcical for words.

I see the lunatics have taken over the asylum. The lack of understanding of environmental issues is so profound and some of the comments so hilarious, I'm gonna use this thread as an illustration of global ignorance of the issues surrounding climate change.

I note I particular a lot of use of "no-one knows" or "there is no proof" when the poster really means he/she either personally doesn't know or is oblivious to the stack of evidence available.

Countering scientific argument with conspiracy theories is also an invalid argument. And some of the quasi scientific diagrams are simply a joke. It takes more than an hour on Google to educate yourself on man-made climate change.

Because the climate 'science' is so shoddy, attempts to prove the first case simply cannot stand proper scientific scrutiny (which is why they always try to hide their data and methods), and no-one has come close to finding a solution to the second issue."

As a premise this is completely fallacious which invalidates any subsequent conclusion.

..... theory that despite consensus to the contrary would stand up against all argument.

The science of climate change is just that ....

Climate change is not a science -- to be a science it would have to be 'falsifiable' -- that is, there would need to be a set of circumstances which would mean that the theory was proved wrong. There are none.

The climate models predicted continuous warming; Nature has shown that to be wrong, but even that isn't allowed to prove the models wrong.

The climate models predicted warm winters and less snow for Northern Europe; which has now had 5 brutally cold winters in a row, but that isn't allowed to prove the models wrong. In fact, they now tell us that they knew that all along, but for some reason decided to tell us the opposite.

The climate models said eastern Australia would suffer near-permanent drought. Now the place is awash with rainwater; they predicted the loss of all Arctic ice by now; tens of millions of 'climate refugees'; submerged Pacific nations; coral reefs will vanish.

None of these predictions has been anywhere near right, yet this evidence is not allowed to prove climatology wrong.

Climatology is cargo-cult science at best, a massive shamanistic fraud at worst.

True science was well explained by the late Professor Richard Feynman:

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart he was who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. That's all there is to it."

..... theory that despite consensus to the contrary would stand up against all argument.

The science of climate change is just that ....

Climate change is not a science -- to be a science it would have to be 'falsifiable' -- that is, there would need to be a set of circumstances which would mean that the theory was proved wrong. There are none.

The climate models predicted continuous warming; Nature has shown that to be wrong, but even that isn't allowed to prove the models wrong.

The climate models predicted warm winters and less snow for Northern Europe; which has now had 5 brutally cold winters in a row, but that isn't allowed to prove the models wrong. In fact, they now tell us that they knew that all along, but for some reason decided to tell us the opposite.

The climate models said eastern Australia would suffer near-permanent drought. Now the place is awash with rainwater; they predicted the loss of all Arctic ice by now; tens of millions of 'climate refugees'; submerged Pacific nations; coral reefs will vanish.

None of these predictions has been anywhere near right, yet this evidence is not allowed to prove climatology wrong.

Climatology is cargo-cult science at best, a massive shamanistic fraud at worst.

True science was well explained by the late Professor Richard Feynman:

"If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't make any difference how smart he was who made the guess, or what his name is. If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong."

And other problem clearly illustrated here is that many people don't understand what science actually is - it is essentially a thought process - skepticality and critical thinking a proicess of testing and evidence.

So hands up here if you are a climate scientist?

Yep, figured as much...

Are you saying that you are a "climate scientist"? Or are you saying that to post on this thread you need to be?

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

For a good analysis of climate change skeptics" tactics before the publication of the IPCC report try this.....

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/sep/16/climate-change-contrarians-5-stages-denial

And Global Warming is the latest on their hit list. Some people, some 'experts', will do anything for a dollar.

Those Merchants of Doubt include Galileo (who was a 'denier' of the 'settled science' that the Earth was the center of the Universe); Charles Darwin, who spread misinformation denying the 'consensus opinion' that Man was made in God's image and could therefore not be descended from the apes; Alfred Wegener, who proposed in 1912 the absurd theory of continental drift, and who was not vindicated until the 1960s, and even Albert Einstein, who faced systematic and sustained opposition to his theory of relativity (as summarised in the publication A Hundred Authors Against Einstein).

Without people prepared to think outside the common herd, to look forward, to go against the 'mainstream consensus', we would probably all still be living in caves chalking bad drawings of mammoths.

As far as I know, climatology is the only 'science' which has explicitly called a halt to progress ("the science is settled -- the debate is over"), and hence reveals itself not to be a science at all, but a political and bureaucratic boondoggle of the first order.

It is also ludicrous to say 'some 'experts', will do anything for a dollar.' Al Gore, for example, won't do anything for less than $100,000 plus expenses. And he's about as far as it's humanly possible to get from an expert.

The science of climate change is just that - a theory based on several lifetimes of study and evidence. If you look at the counter arguments they are largely partial, or based on singular events taken in isolation.

As for "progress" well facilitating human endeavour to continue on planet earth would seem to be progress in my book.

What some posters fail to do is differentiate between known earth climate cycles and the changes now which are unprecedented and only explainable through human activity.

I think one thing that people find hard to appreciated is the relative time scales.

This actually makes a mockery of the "claims" or rather interpretations put on this so-called leak.

A bit of perspective.......

http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/09/top-climate-myths-ipcc

The issue is CLIMATE CHANGE - not short periods of cooler or warmer weather. One also needs to look at the depth and amount of ice not just the area covered.

Medicine has still only uncovered the tip of the iceberg on what causes immune-system and cognitive disorders, and there are many studies that point north south east and west on pretty much every synthetic chemical that is in the human sphere. What seems to be becoming irrefutable is that many of the diseases which are on the rise, are caused not so much by a single chemical, or a multi-vaccine, but by the cumulative effects on the brain and immune system of living in the modern world and being bombarded with chemicals from the womb onwards.

This imho is why there are so many heated debates and conflicting studies, the damage is gradual and cumulative, at least for most people. Obviously some people have a severe reaction to one specific shot or pill, which makes the headlines, but generally there seems to be a gradual erosion of the immune system and cognitive function which is caused by long term exposure to many different chemicals, including over the counter meds and flu-shots, and water-treatment chemicals and of course pesticides.

And science is still playing catch-up, which is what we must expect since humans lived for over a hundred thousand years without any synthetic chemicals, then suddenly these agents arrived in the 20thC and became a daily fact of life, so we are still in the very first stages of seeing the effects, especially trans-generational effects. What will the tenth generation of synthetic-chemicals humans be like, we just don't know yet. Its also true that a lot of big pharma is engaged in cover-ups of data, and they do put profits before lives, this is a historical fact. But underlying all this is that science doesn't actually know yet, it is very difficult to isolate one agent when the average human is eating, drinking and breathing modern synthetic chemicals all day long.

This poster obviously has no idea what the "immune system" actually is or does.

Furthermore vaccinationable diseases are NOT on the increase where vaccines are used...have you noticed any smallpox lately? Diseases like polio only spear where vaccination programme have not been present or not administered.