eliotness

It is obvious that you have no understanding of ISO 14040. Population growth has zero relation to life cycle analysis.

ONLY YOU mentioned Cyanide. How on earth you can compare Carbon Dioxide to Cyanide ? NO ONE EVER has died of CO2 poisoning but rather when CO2 has displaced Oxygen to a huge amount then people have died from Oxygen starvation and NOT Carbon Dioxide poisoning ( Carbon Monoxide is an all together different matter). I do agree that many naturally occurring chemicals can be toxic, after all many people have been murdered in the past by "naturally occurring poisons". But I feel that is a pretty wet attempt at diversion.

So where on earth (pardon the pun) do you get CFCs occur naturally. Please be so kind as to give a scientific reference because that would be amazing news to most environmental scientists, because I believe YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG 100%.

My point, which you obviously missed, was the atmosphere is in a dynamic state. So whilst it may be possible to calculate the amount of CO2 being produced by the Earth's 7+ billion people, it can only be an estimate of how much of that CO2 is "locked into the atmosphere" compared to how much can be attributed to natural processes.

By the way, to correct you, CO2 is not an organic chemical. If you had studied real chemistry you should know that.

It is simple maths to understand if the population of the earth doubles in a century then the earth's population then, not us now, will face a multitude of problems, not just 2 to 5 degrees Celsius rise, but massive political unrest, which will ultimately kill far more people than slightly warmer climate.

So sorry to irk you by using CO2. I do actually know how to write it correctly, but currently I am using a tablet rather than a computer and there is no facility for such niceties.

By the way, you have a way to dig before you exceed the hole in Kimberly, but you are certainly trying, LOL.

Sorry eliot but this is just getting too stupid to respond too.

Cyanide was an analogy that showed you were wrong.

"CO2 is not an Organic Chemical"

So what is it?

Volcanoes emit natural CFC's I told you ten posts ago.

Yet again you refuse to say were you got the information from that volcanoes emit Chlorofluorocarbons. So without peer reviewed scientific evidence I don't believe you.

Is the reaction of a carbonate with an acid an organic reaction ? Is Calcium Carbonate an organic chemical ?

So when you have no scientific counter you call the argument "stupid". That sir says a lot about your blinkered view of the subject.

And how your Cyanide analogy, bit like comparing potatoes and plums, proved me wrong, well if you think so up2u.

BTW how's the digging going ?

Like I said "keep digging"

You obviously no idea what "life cycle analysis" is all about or even bothered to look it up, oh dear, oh dear !

So "anything can be a pollutant" 555 yet again I ask you to refer to the definition in "The Oxford English Dictionary".

If you've no idea of the linking of the denial of the holocaust with CC, then you should maybe expect a visit soon from MOSSAD for some attitude adjustment.

If sir, organic chemistry was "one of your favourite subjects", I presume that was at junior school because you confused CFCs with Cyanide. So pray tell, why was my analogy of CFCs wrong ? Were they not a man-made pollutant (in the true sense of the word) and were they not effecting the Ozone Layer, and did not their universal banning help the Ozone Layer to begin recovery ???

I can lend you a spade if you've worn out the other one digging your very deep hole.

You are the one pushing population growth not me. What is your life cycle analysis on population growth?

Yes anything can become a pollutant even noise, anything. Natural or man made.

MOSSAD? I think you are losing the plot lol.

Absolutely, Organic Chemistry is one of my top subjects. Loved it. Not in Junior High much later. It is why I generally correct CO2 to CO₂ because using the incorrect nomenclature irks me.

Your analogy on CO₂ being naturally occurring how can it be a pollutant. Well Cyanide is a naturally occurring molecule also and it most certainly can be a pollutant as can CO₂. Also your premise that CFC's can only be attributed to man because they do not occur naturally is simply not true. CFC's do occur naturally and can be separated as a pollutant and a proportion be attributed to Man. The same as CO₂ is naturally occurring and a proportion as a pollution can be attributed to man.

The facts are naturally occurring CFC's are not in themselves a pollutant. The CFC's produced by man certainly did become a pollutant and effected the Ozone Layer.

Naturally occurring CO₂ is not a pollutant in itself but the added man made CO₂ is a pollutant and is effecting Global Warming and causing Climate Change.

I am pretty sure everyone knows who is digging a hole lol

Da Daaaaaa!
[/quote





It is obvious that you have no understanding of ISO 14040. Population growth has zero relation to life cycle analysis.

ONLY YOU mentioned Cyanide. How on earth you can compare Carbon Dioxide to Cyanide ? NO ONE EVER has died of CO2 poisoning but rather when CO2 has displaced Oxygen to a huge amount then people have died from Oxygen starvation and NOT Carbon Dioxide poisoning ( Carbon Monoxide is an all together different matter). I do agree that many naturally occurring chemicals can be toxic, after all many people have been murdered in the past by "naturally occurring poisons". But I feel that is a pretty wet attempt at diversion.


So where on earth (pardon the pun) do you get CFCs occur naturally. Please be so kind as to give a scientific reference because that would be amazing news to most environmental scientists, because I believe YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG 100%.

My point, which you obviously missed, was the atmosphere is in a dynamic state. So whilst it may be possible to calculate the amount of CO2 being produced by the Earth's 7+ billion people, it can only be an estimate of how much of that CO2 is "locked into the atmosphere" compared to how much can be attributed to natural processes.

By the way, to correct you, CO2 is not an organic chemical. If you had studied real chemistry you should know that.

It is simple maths to understand if the population of the earth doubles in a century then the earth's population then, not us now, will face a multitude of problems, not just 2 to 5 degrees Celsius rise, but massive political unrest, which will ultimately kill far more people than slightly warmer climate.

So sorry to irk you by using CO2. I do actually know how to write it correctly, but currently I am using a tablet rather than a computer and there is no facility for such niceties.

By the way, you have a way to dig before you exceed the hole in Kimberly, but you are certainly trying, LOL.

AWESOME!!!!!!!!

16th October 2015

Man what absolutely great news and well deserved.

John Cook B.Sc First Class Honours

Climate Communications Fellow University of Queensland

Founder of Skeptical Science Website - Awarded the Eureka Award for Science Communication

John Cook named as one of the 10 Distinguished Fellows by The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry

"I'm honoured to be elected as one of ten new Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. Its especially cool to be listed with some scientists whom I deeply admire such as Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky and James Powell."

His ability to communicate the science on GW / CC and debunk the myths propagated by Climate Deniers really is unequalled even by NASA, NOAA and Berkeley Earth.

If we could just get him to sort out Congresswoman Blackburn. She is beyond John Cook's skills in communication I think.

Are you actually saying he's just got a BSc , not a MSc, a PhD or a professorship ? You mean to say your scientific prophet is just a lowly BSc from an Australian University ????? Oh dear, forget the spade you'll need a JCB to continue digging your hole.

Cyanide is a natural occurring molecule pour a few thousand litres into a river and get back to me. Anything can be a pollutant.

"The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ?"

Oh 'population' my mistake. Population and climate change are not relevant.

"Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?"

What is the Ancient Greeks position on modern day GW / CC? Do you have a link?

I made absolutely no comment on Armenian's in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Rwanda, Kosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect -I corrected it for you- your welcome), Cambodia and many other places. None whatsoever. GW / CC is the topic.

"life cycle analysis"? No problem pop it up and I will take a look. Do you have a link?

Who mentioned Cyanide, I said CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), so we now know your knowledge of Chemistry.

I said the Ancient Greeks invented science because they have historical data showing the climate "in their known world" Your reply was "what is the ancient Greeks position on modern day GW/CC". Now I know you are taking the piss.

The topic is without question CC, but your use of the word "denier" in this context is so linked to the holocaust, heck you even said "climate holocaust". Try and "deny" that.

Life Cycle Analysis, sure there is an ISO standard for that topic, which shows your lack of awareness of environmental management.

Keep digging my friend, 'cause the hole is getting deeper.

Anything can be a pollutant. Just because something is naturally occurring doesn't mean it cannot become a pollutant. Your analogy of CFC was wrong anyway. Ah Organic Chemistry one of my favourite subjects.

Yes Climate holocaust denier. A holocaust of climate. Have no idea what you are rabbiting on about.

Exactly so what is the life cycle analysis of population growth? Give me a link.

Like I said "keep digging"

You obviously no idea what "life cycle analysis" is all about or even bothered to look it up, oh dear, oh dear !

So "anything can be a pollutant" 555 yet again I ask you to refer to the definition in "The Oxford English Dictionary".

If you've no idea of the linking of the denial of the holocaust with CC, then you should maybe expect a visit soon from MOSSAD for some attitude adjustment.

If sir, organic chemistry was "one of your favourite subjects", I presume that was at junior school because you confused CFCs with Cyanide. So pray tell, why was my analogy of CFCs wrong ? Were they not a man-made pollutant (in the true sense of the word) and were they not effecting the Ozone Layer, and did not their universal banning help the Ozone Layer to begin recovery ???

I can lend you a spade if you've worn out the other one digging your very deep hole.

Yet again (and again) you say CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. It is an essential molecule for life on earth, without it there would be no life, as we know it on the planet.

The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ? I know the Guardian is the mouthpiece of the champagne socialists, the Liberal elite and the Green mafia and that is why the admitting of a scientific consensus being proved wrong after 20 years is so significant, especially as your much repeated scientific consensus on man-made GW is almost 20 years old

I stated before that climate change has always happened and quoted historical events. Your reply was to question who wrote about those events. Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?

The most worrying thing about your politics is your making light of the Holocaust, be it of the Armenians in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Ruanda, Cosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect), Cambodia and many other places. Holocaust denier is a criminal offence in some countries and for you to equate that with questioning some computer modelling of future climate is so so very deeply offensive and shows a very severe misunderstanding of history.

So what green energy do you think will make a doubling of the world's population sustainable, pray tell. Also include whether you have considered a full "Life Cycle Analysis" for your version of green energy. Apart from energy, how in goodness sake are we to feed and give clean water to 12 billion people ?

When pinned to the wall your argument is starting to show big holes, but "there is non so blind as those who will not see".

Cyanide is a natural occurring molecule pour a few thousand litres into a river and get back to me. Anything can be a pollutant.

"The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ?"

Oh 'population' my mistake. Population and climate change are not relevant.

"Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?"

What is the Ancient Greeks position on modern day GW / CC? Do you have a link?

I made absolutely no comment on Armenian's in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Rwanda, Kosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect -I corrected it for you- your welcome), Cambodia and many other places. None whatsoever. GW / CC is the topic.

"life cycle analysis"? No problem pop it up and I will take a look. Do you have a link?

Who mentioned Cyanide, I said CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons), so we now know your knowledge of Chemistry.

I said the Ancient Greeks invented science because they have historical data showing the climate "in their known world" Your reply was "what is the ancient Greeks position on modern day GW/CC". Now I know you are taking the piss.

The topic is without question CC, but your use of the word "denier" in this context is so linked to the holocaust, heck you even said "climate holocaust". Try and "deny" that.

Life Cycle Analysis, sure there is an ISO standard for that topic, which shows your lack of awareness of environmental management.

Keep digging my friend, 'cause the hole is getting deeper.

The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger.

The amount of CO₂ emitted by Man is easily identified.

Naturally occurring CFC's most certainly do occur. They are emitted by Volcanic activity.

Goodness me High School science. Where do you get this misinformation from?[/quo





How on earth can you quantify the actual amount of CO2 in the atmosphere emitted by man at one time when there is a natural process of generation and consumption going on ? There is no question that man emits CO2, heck ! we breath, but to quantify that is JUST AN ESTIMATE based on what computer modelling you are using.


I know of NO natural process that emits CFCs , so as you frequently say "provide a peer reviewed reference that proves that "


And your last phrase sir is deeply insulting especially as you have never provided any indication of your internationally recognised qualifications and work experience.

The holes in your argument are getting bigger by the minute.

Methane release from melting

permafrost could trigger dangerous

global warming

"A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesnt adequately account for a methane warming feedback"

Policy Briefing Link

Dr. John Abraham Prof. Thermal Sciences

While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isnt the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Guardian Article Link

Dr. Robert Holmes Earth System Scientist 'Woods Hole Research Center'

"Its essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the

possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming.

If they dont, I suspect that down the road well all be looking at the

2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror."

It is a real problem with IPCC Reports because of the political nature of GW / CC and the powerful and wealthy Fossil Fuel Industry funding Climate Denial they have to be so conservative in their reports and underestimate GW and CC.

If subterranean frozen Methane beds begin to be exposed and warmed it triggers a unstoppable feedback cycle of Global Warming and more Methane being released which then triggers more Global Warming.

The current Global Warming is caused by Man putting CO₂ into the atmosphere so Man can reduce it so it can be addressed. The Methane beds in the Arctic begin to be released we can only sit back and watch. Not much can be done.

You have ignored my post 418 about the scientific consensus on population growth. But how can mankind reduce CO2 emissions if the world's population is going to double in the 21st century ??? Live the dream my friend because it isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, your making light of the comment about holocaust deniers by equating them with people who question your beliefs ( Note I say beliefs and not facts, because a forecast of the future temperature of the earth is a projection based on computer models and NOT A FACT ) is so deeply offensive to anyone who is Jewish and/or had family killed by the Nazis.

The Guardian, which must be the greenest paper on the planet, has admitted a scientific consensus got it wrong, so why oh why do you keep on insisting your version of a scientific consensus is infallible ?

Your dismissal of historical records is very disturbing and rather reflects on the GW prophets of doom's wider education. You are without question a very focused person and I commend you for that, but you need to appreciate all the related topics.

With the population growth it is even more crucial to transition to non polluting Clean Energy. It actually makes population growth sustainable. Generate more energy to support a larger population without adding any more CO₂ pollutant.

I didn't mention Jews or Nazis

The Guardian actually reports the consensus on GW / CC correctly publishing the facts not propaganda.

GW / CC theory is based on historical records. I focus on the science full stop.

Yet again (and again) you say CO2 is a pollutant. It is not. It is an essential molecule for life on earth, without it there would be no life, as we know it on the planet.

The Guardian said that the scientific consensus on population growth has been proved wrong. Why do you refuse to admit that FACT ? I know the Guardian is the mouthpiece of the champagne socialists, the Liberal elite and the Green mafia and that is why the admitting of a scientific consensus being proved wrong after 20 years is so significant, especially as your much repeated scientific consensus on man-made GW is almost 20 years old

I stated before that climate change has always happened and quoted historical events. Your reply was to question who wrote about those events. Do you not appreciate it was the Ancient Greeks who "invented" science ?

The most worrying thing about your politics is your making light of the Holocaust, be it of the Armenians in WW1 or the Jews, Slavs, mentally disabled and countless others in WW2, plus the slaughter in Ruanda, Cosovo (apologies if the spelling is incorrect), Cambodia and many other places. Holocaust denier is a criminal offence in some countries and for you to equate that with questioning some computer modelling of future climate is so so very deeply offensive and shows a very severe misunderstanding of history.

So what green energy do you think will make a doubling of the world's population sustainable, pray tell. Also include whether you have considered a full "Life Cycle Analysis" for your version of green energy. Apart from energy, how in goodness sake are we to feed and give clean water to 12 billion people ?

When pinned to the wall your argument is starting to show big holes, but "there is non so blind as those who will not see".

The thing that is the route cause of the "debate" is that it is impossible to chemically distinguish between CO2 produced by the activities of mankind and that produced by nature, likewise CH4. The case with CFCs was much more certain as naturally occurring CFCs don't exist and therefore the environmentalists were able to drive a very effective campaign against there production and use. If other man-made chemicals could be linked to the current changes in the Earth's climate then the case would be much stronger.

Amazing - a whole article on this environmental air pollution and no mention of the underlying technology causing it. In other words, the "F" word. Or at least, I assume it is fracking going on here, but not sure why it is considered politically incorrect to mention it? Fear of causing a larger societal backlash to this environmentally dangerous and experimental technology under the military regime, or just plain ignorance on the part of the journos? Fracking in Isaan was covered by a well-made documentary by Thai PBS recently, so what's up with The Nation at the moment?[/quotle]

Fracking in a country that relies so much on groundwater extraction is a very risky undertaking and needs to be strongly regulated and monitored, something that I would suggest is not happening in Thailand. I admit to being biased because I rely on a borehole for my water and events in the USA show problems do occur (even with the USEPA looking to regulate the industry).

What percentage of U.S. scientists disagree with human effected climate change, and what potential bias could they have? Has nobody even looked into the credentials.

That works both ways. Also the degree of effect humans have had in the past, are having currently and may have in the future is important. Add to this to what extent man can reverse, halt or reduce any climate change, then you will break up the overwhelming consensus claimed into a wide spectrum of opinions much more representative of real science.

Methane release from melting

permafrost could trigger dangerous

global warming

"A policy briefing from the Woods Hole Research Center concludes that the IPCC doesnt adequately account for a methane warming feedback"

Policy Briefing Link

Dr. John Abraham Prof. Thermal Sciences

While most attention has been given to carbon dioxide, it isnt the only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about. Carbon dioxide is the most important human-emitted greenhouse gas, but methane has also increased in the atmosphere and it adds to our concerns.

While methane is not currently as important as carbon dioxide, it has a hidden danger. Molecule for molecule, methane traps more heat than carbon dioxide; approximately 30 times more, depending on the time frame under consideration. However, because methane is present in much smaller concentrations (compared to carbon dioxide), its aggregate effect is less.

But what has scientists focusing on methane is the way it is released into the atmosphere. Unlike carbon dioxide, which is emitted primarily through burning of fossil fuels, methane has a large natural emission component. This natural emission is from warming permafrost in the northern latitudes. Permafrost is permanently frozen ground. Much of the permafrost is undisturbed by bacterial decomposition.

As the Earth warms, and the Arctic warms especially fast, the permafrost melts and soil decomposition accelerates. Consequently, an initial warming leads to more emission, leading to more warming and more emission. It is a vicious cycle and there may be a tipping point where this self-reinforcing cycle takes over.

Guardian Article Link

Dr. Robert Holmes Earth System Scientist 'Woods Hole Research Center'

"Its essential that policymakers begin to seriously consider the

possibility of a substantial permafrost carbon feedback to global warming.

If they dont, I suspect that down the road well all be looking at the

2°C threshold in our rear-view mirror."

It is a real problem with IPCC Reports because of the political nature of GW / CC and the powerful and wealthy Fossil Fuel Industry funding Climate Denial they have to be so conservative in their reports and underestimate GW and CC.

If subterranean frozen Methane beds begin to be exposed and warmed it triggers a unstoppable feedback cycle of Global Warming and more Methane being released which then triggers more Global Warming.

The current Global Warming is caused by Man putting CO₂ into the atmosphere so Man can reduce it so it can be addressed. The Methane beds in the Arctic begin to be released we can only sit back and watch. Not much can be done.

You have ignored my post 418 about the scientific consensus on population growth. But how can mankind reduce CO2 emissions if the world's population is going to double in the 21st century ??? Live the dream my friend because it isn't going to happen.

Furthermore, your making light of the comment about holocaust deniers by equating them with people who question your beliefs ( Note I say beliefs and not facts, because a forecast of the future temperature of the earth is a projection based on computer models and NOT A FACT ) is so deeply offensive to anyone who is Jewish and/or had family killed by the Nazis.

The Guardian, which must be the greenest paper on the planet, has admitted a scientific consensus got it wrong, so why oh why do you keep on insisting your version of a scientific consensus is infallible ?

Your dismissal of historical records is very disturbing and rather reflects on the GW prophets of doom's wider education. You are without question a very focused person and I commend you for that, but you need to appreciate all the related topics.

That Russian government is the worst of all times

That leader is what I call a criminal. Should be jailed for war crimes and I sure in years to come that's where he will be

Caged

I beg to differ, as I think Stalin was infinitely worse. Don't forget the western part of the Ukraine was prior to 1939 actually part of Poland. Stalin got to grab it as part of the Nazi/Soviet pact in 1939. The culture of western Ukraine was (not sure how far it was Russianised since 1945) very different from the eastern part. Although the Ukraine as a whole, prior to 1941 suffered terribly under Stalin with many millions killed.

There's an interesting article in The Guardian, just Google sustainable development and earth's population. It states that 20 years of scientific consensus on the earth's population growth appears now to be wrong. They were predicting a peak of 9 billion by 2050 then a gradual fall. It is now predicted that by 2100 the earth will have 12 billion people. That's nearly double in a century. What is that going to do to CO2 reduction plans ? The IPCC wrote their forecast on global warming assuming a peak population in 2050 based on that consensus of scientific opinion (no doubt peer reviewed). So they'll need to multiply their Armageddon forecasts to take cognisance of that "uncomfortable truth".

I bet a certain person is already packing his bags to head off to the court to launch an anti-greenhouse gas emissions protest. Global warming will increase x fold if these people continue their heinous crime against humanity. After all 99.99% of peer reviewed scientists say it will !!!

The Soviet Union before and Russia since the breakup, have always sponsored terrorists all over the world. The only problem is "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

It sounds as though 1. The "burning" isn't working if methane is escaping into the surrounding air, and 2. It appears there is no scrubbing of the exhaust gases. So very 3rd world and not the green policy drive the PM appeared to expound. As for not following the EIA, simple, slap a restraining order on them. Ah ! but this is Thailand ?

If the government wants real civil disorder, forget beer, focus on Lao Khow (or however it's spelt). Can you imagine the riots if that was "restricted"!!!

If anyone wants to question the huge consensus quoted frequently by the person above, I suggest they read an article published by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, written by Andrew Montford called "Fraud, lies and public relations, the 97% consensus and its critics". Easy to download from the internet.

There are 99 of them on your skeptical science site. link

and during 2013-2014 there were a smidge under 17,000 peer reviewed papers / articles and research that confirmed GW / CC

So what?

Exactly

So how many of those 17,000 showed, or rather proved that any change in the current temperature is man-made ? And how many gave solutions ? Just asking !

A sad day for all "real beer" drinkers.

So Up2u2, you believe what is on the internet is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and that reported science cannot be wrong. Ever heard of the science of eugenics ? Joseph Goebbels would have loved you, he could have had a field day with the internet. The use of 1/2 truths is so very dangerous.

All you seem to do is quote from information you gleaned from the internet. From your total avoidance to mention any internationally recognised qualifications or work experience it is obvious your practical experience in this matter is limited. An armchair expert, and yes there are many, can be prone to find the facts to fit their theory, rather than see the big picture. I do admire your focus, but I find your view of the bigger picture to be rather narrow.

You constantly glue man-made global warming and climate change together, so how do you explain periods of climate cooling ? You questioned my reference to historical records to show climate change has happened in recorded history by saying something along the lines of "where is the scientific data to prove that". So you think the Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Vikings and all the recorders of historical events since were wrong ? And Victorians were misguided when the River Thames froze over every winter.

Climate change IS A FACT. Man's contribution to any possible change in the Earth's climate has never been fully quantified, speculated on, yes, actually "what we need to do to reverse it or keep stable" quantified NO. Any raising of such a potential global problem, without mentioning possible mitigation or even solutions is politically motivated scare tactics.

I saw one report that said "with increased global warming the European Med coast will become a desert, but the Lakeland Fells in North Western England will be able to grow grapes. How do you think that was received by the poor cold and wet folks in the Lake District ?

And finally, and I do really mean it this time, if mankind doesn't address the time-bomb of unsustainable population growth, then whatever we do to lower our carbon footprints, which is absolutely a 1st world concept and has no meaning in the 3rd world, then we will have to learn to adapt, because we ain't going to change anything.

Goodbye.

555 I bet he's never even seen it. ???

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

Written history shows that in different parts of the world the climate was very different than now. Never heard of the fertile crescent ? In Roman times North Africa was fertile. In the Viking period Greenland was actually green and they farmed the land. In Victorian times the River Thames froze over, just a few examples. You don't need science to prove that.

It is not "the same science that is used to confirm GW". Please, Climate Change has always happened, hotter and cooler. These records were written by people who were there at the time, long before computer modelling. Are you suggesting there is scientific proof that the earth's climate has been stable until the industrial revolution, when massive CO2 emissions commenced ?

What 'written history' are you referring too?

'Roman times', 'Greenland', 'North Africa', 'River Thames' what 'written history'?

"....These records were written by people who were there at the time...."

Written by what people where?

I am not suggesting anything I am just asking how you know climates have always changed.

Sorry, but I think I have replied to your comments enough. At one point I actually thought we had become involved in a sensible debate, however you recently appear to be just being provocative for the sake of it. Whatever turns you on my friend, but you have just put a huge question mark over your previous logic. So be it. I do not feel the urge to reply to you any further.

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

This has always confused me:

"......Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened........."

How do you know climates have always changed? Surely you would reject the science that demonstrates that climates in the past have changed? It is the same science that is used to confirm GW / CC.

Written history shows that in different parts of the world the climate was very different than now. Never heard of the fertile crescent ? In Roman times North Africa was fertile. In the Viking period Greenland was actually green and they farmed the land. In Victorian times the River Thames froze over, just a few examples. You don't need science to prove that.

It is not "the same science that is used to confirm GW". Please, Climate Change has always happened, hotter and cooler. These records were written by people who were there at the time, long before computer modelling. Are you suggesting there is scientific proof that the earth's climate has been stable until the industrial revolution, when massive CO2 emissions commenced ?

".....I am not convinced that man made climate change is a fact, therefore I said "may possibly". I am not a denier, just not 100% convinced...."

".... it would be naive to say that the atmospheric discharges will not effect the localised weather and eventually the earth's climate....."

?

I am a bit confused as well, he seems to be changing his position.

No, but maybe the debate has evolved,

Yes I am certain climate change is happening. It has always happened and we have no right to say it will not occur during our tenure of the planet.

Yes I am certain man's generation of pollution is damaging the earth. To restrict that to just one aspect however, i.e. CO2 generation is simplistic. As an aside, which group of scientists thought firstly of putting organic Lead in petrol, which was proven to cause brain damage and then decided to replace it with benzene, a well known carcinogen with a huge "global warming" potential.

To attempt to blame man's contribution to the current climate and any changes in the future, whist ignoring changes that occurred in the past is again simplistic. To quantify man's contribution is hugely difficult and appears from several posters to be based on computer modelling. That is not as definitive a process as some would like us to believe. Therefore any interpretation of the data should be open to debate.

Any pollution is wrong. Some pollution is however unavoidable. The aim must be to reduce pollution, whether of the air, water or soil, to manageable and/or acceptable levels.

CO2 is an essential ingredient of the earth's atmosphere. Life on earth could not exist, in a form we recognise, without the presence of CO2.

Whilst the climatology scientists have raised many good and factual points, it is apparent that this has been taken up by a very nasty group of anti-capitalists as something to bash the establishment with. The Corporate Establishment has attempted to counter this, but by giving the likes of Marsha Blackburn a stage they degrade their argument. This radical politicisation of the argument makes sensible debate almost impossible. Not blaming just one side.

It is easy to state a problem, the difficulty is defining a workable solution. If GW is man-made then solutions need to be stated by its proponents, clearly, loudly (so even politicians can understand) and not to be perceived as anti-capitalist, imperialistic, racialist, anti one religion or another. Hugely difficult problem.

There is also a danger of being thought to "cry wolf" too often. I've been in that situation several times in my career. The wolves did come eventually, but in the meantimes my warnings were ignored.

Finally Up2u2 asked what would actually convince me that man-made global warming is actually happening. Without wishing to state an oxymoron, I am a sympathetic sceptic. What would however convince me and put me firmly in the GW camp is if the Pope and other religious leaders stated that "they got it wrong" in the past and for the sake of the planet everyone should practice family planning to limit the number of children produced. One can dream, but that ain't going to happen, ever !!!