Gulf Of Thailand Won't Rise With Global Warming, Expert Claims

[tartempion]

But if you're responding to the second part of my post--we just disagree. I don't think Thais are laughable, ridiculous or stupid and you seem to be implying (although not stating) that they are. And not just in a joking, clever way if somehow that might be ok. Up to you, but you're missing most of the wonders around you with that attitude...

Well dumspero we do disagree then.

Based on the culture I come from thais are laughable, ridiculous and stupid.

From a thai standpoint however, I the farang, am laughable, ridiculous and stupid.

Dunno if you get this though

[ding]

"Leading hydroogist" with a major investment in waterfront!

Water seeks its own level in the liquid state.

(owned by a science-tard)

Edited May 13, 2007 by ding

[ding]

I guess when you look at a globe the water will need to run uphill to fill the gulf and that will stop it from happening. I hope they don’t use the same logic with the nuclear plant they want to build.

I'm coming very late into this fascinating thread, and I'm sorry if I repeat anything someone else has already covered, but the way I see it, the problem lies in our limited understanding of how water sticks to a sphere (earth). Pour some water on an orange and see where it goes.

We're talking about "levels" because we only understand the behaviour of water in a flat (to our perception) enclosed area. i.e. a bathtub, a pond, small lake, swimming pool etc.

Stiction applies here? I don't know.

[TBWG]

Gulf of Thailand won't rise with global warming, expert claims

Apr 23, 2007, 3:03 GMT

Bangkok - Global warming is not likely to cause the sea level in the Gulf of Thailand to rise because the body of water is too far from melting glaciers, a leading Thai hydrologist claimed on Monday.

Recent forecasts by the United Nations' Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which predict a 40 centimetre rise in sea levels by the end of the century will cause flooding for up to 94 million Asians living in coastal areas, may not apply to the Gulf of Thailand, according to Suphat Vongvisessomjai, a former professor in water resources engineering at Bangkok's Asia Institute of Technology.

'The climate change panel's projection was wrongly accepted to apply to the Gulf of Thailand,' Suphat told The Nation newspaper. 'We are too far from melting glaciers or ice sheets.'

Suphat added that, in fact, recent research shows that the average sea levels along some coastal provinces on the gulf have declined 0.3 to 0.6 centrimetres over the past eight years.

The hydrologist, now an employee of Team Consulting Engineering, called on the public not to panic over the IPCC findings.

'The climate change panel did not deceive us or exaggerate. Its scientific findings are just based on the environment of their scientists, most of whom live in Europe,' he told the English-language daily.

Asia-Pacific news

LaoPo

Hi All

Apologies if this has already been posted but I can't bring myself to read 11 pages!!

From BBC world news..........................

The village that was swallowed by the sea

By Bethan Jinkinson

Samut Prakan province,Thailand

Just an hour's drive south of the Thai capital Bangkok , the small coastal village of Khun Samutchine is facing a daily battle with the sea.

Village scene

The sea is coming in at an alarming rate

The village is suffering from the effects of severe coastal erosion: the sea comes in at a rate of approximately 25 metres a year.

Environmentalists say the erosion experienced in the area is probably some of the worst in the world.

Dr Thanawat Jarupongsakul, a scientist from Bangkok's Chulalongkorn University says that climate change has helped cause the loss of nearly 600 km of Thailand's coastline.

"Climate change has resulted in more intense waves and rougher seas during the monsoon period," he said. "The average height of waves used to be between one and 1.5 metres, but now it has increased to between two and four metres high."

Lost homes

For the villagers who live here, the encroaching sea has been devastating.

temple

The temple is surrounded on all sides by the sea

The village has lost a health centre, a school and dozens of electricity pylons, the tops of which can just be seen poking out from the sea.

Nearly half of the community's households have had to abandon their coastal homes altogether. The remaining families have to keep moving their houses further and further inland.

One of the most dramatic symbols of the sea's incursion is the village temple, Wat Khun Samutchine.

This intricate Buddhist temple stands two metres above the sea and can only be reached by a series of rickety wooden bridges.

Wave defence

Monks resident at the temple have tried to protect their buildings by planting mangrove trees.

Mangrove forests have traditionally protected Thailand's coastline by encouraging the build-up of sediment.

But local people say that the mangrove saplings rarely thrive. The mud is not deep enough to allow the trees to spread their roots before they are washed away by the wind and the waves.

Perhaps the best hope for the community comes from a project developed by Dr Thanawat.

Buffer

Concrete structures decrease the power of the waves

Five hundred metres out to sea, he has built large concrete structures - with the aim of breaking the power of the waves.

So far preliminary results are good. Dr Thanawat says that he has decreased the energy of the waves by up to 50 percent.

But the structures were only built as part of a small case study, and the government has yet to approve their use across all affected areas.

Environmentalists say that Thailand's military-backed government has yet to implement any tangible measures to combat the effects of climate change.

For the people of Khun Samutchine, their future as a coastal community remains in jeopardy.

Fact as opposed to fiction!!!

TBWG

[LaoPo]

Hi All

Apologies if this has already been posted but I can't bring myself to read 11 pages!!

TBWG

Yes, it was indeed posted already, here:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/index.php?sh...p;#entry1322227

Cheers.

LaoPo

[wilko]

Leading hydroogist" with a major investment in waterfront!

Water seeks its own level in the liquid state.

(owned by a science-tard)

not so on a global scale!....or ar least that level is not uniform

Edited May 28, 2007 by wilko

[Scott]

His argument could have some some validity, but only in the very, very short term. I am afraid the first few typhoons that blow through the Pacific area around the Gulf will quickly move the water in their direction. So, I would guess he might be talking hours or days not years!!!

Why am I trying to defend this guy?

[gharknes]

I can understand where this guy is coming from, I went to my bathroom and filled the bath with water while watching the water in the sink, it stay level but the water in toilet did rise, the toilet is closer to the bath so it must be true

[Jai Dee]

BMA and UN cooperate in reducing global warming

The Bangkok Metropolitan Administration and the United Nations are cooperating in reducing global warming.

Bangkok Governor Apirak Kosayothin revealed that the Director of the United Nations Environmental Programme Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (UNEP ROAP), Mr. Surendra Shrestha, and Bangkok city officials will be working with 36 organizations in the Bangkok metropolitan are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which contribute to global warming. The BMA will also implement its global warming reduction plan for 2007-2012.

The UNEP proposes green buildings, or industrial structures which do not produce carbon dioxide gas, which is a major cause of global warming. The BMA will oversee regulations for the project and conduct negotiations with autoomobile manufacturers and the Board of Investment in promoting alternative energy usage.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 06 July 2007

[geriatrickid]

I was under the impression that the issue with global warming was the resultant effect of creating more extremes in weather systems. Maybe the sea level won't rise, but the droughts and typhoons that visit Thailand will be more severe. If the water supplies are already in precarious balance for some parts of Thailand, I would expect there to be a negative impact due to changes in weather conditions. I guess I should expect water shortages in Phuket and more forest fire smog and dust when I visit my friends in Chiang Mai. That's going to do a number on agrarian based economies like Thailand.

It seems the only countries that will actally benefit are the northern ones like Russia, Sweden, Canada etc. Their energy devoted to heating will decrease and their growing seasons will be longer. Can you imagine if the Russians went to the Black Sea for their junkets instead of Phuket & Pattaya, why there might be peace and quiet, so maybe that's a benefit for Thailand.

[John K]

I came across this great website today by chance. It is an interactive map that lets you see when your backyard will become beachfront property. You can select the sea rise amount and see the new map of the shoreline.

http://flood.firetree.net/

[JetsetBkk]

I came across this great website today by chance. It is an interactive map that lets you see when your backyard will become beachfront property. You can select the sea rise amount and see the new map of the shoreline.

http://flood.firetree.net/

That's great! 8 metres will do me fine - just step outside for a paddle.

[rainman]

I just don't know what to say, sorry. This is too funny.

[londonthai]

it's not 'if' but 'when'.

this map made me think twice about a piece of land I got in Bangkok

[John K]

It looks like the entire Bangkok area will look like the Mississippi delta as the water comes up.

Add to that Al Gore just won the Nobel for his efforts to bring the global warming issue to the front of the line, and it does not paint a rosy picture.

[zink]

Here is the Bangkok new airport after:

1 meter rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=13.6920,100....amp;m=1&t=2

2 meter rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=13.6920,100....amp;m=2&t=2

3 meter rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=13.6920,100....amp;m=3&t=2

[brahmburgers]

we may not care much about the Mekong delta, but it's a microcosm for similar places worldwide. The Mekong delta, however, is getting hit by a double whammy: the rising sea level effects of global warming - and also the large dams being built along the Chinese border with Burma/Laos. Only two of the eight have been built and already the Mekong is showing a markedly smaller volume. Not only is its delta getting flooded by salt water (backing up about 15 miles thsu far) - thereby destroying farmland, but the large natuaral Tonle Sap Lake is getting adverse affects. Thailand, is feeling some adverse effects now, but expect far worse when all 8 dams are built. Heck, maybe the'll build another 13 eight because 21 is a more auspicious number (is it? I don't know).

As for the main topic; unless the surrounding land mass were to rise a corresponding amount, the Gulf of Thailand will lose a lot of shoreline when the seas rise in ernest.

[JetsetBkk]

Add to that Al Gore just won the Nobel for his efforts to bring the global warming issue to the front of the line

Yes. Shame to see the Nobel Peace prize being so readily devalued by the Norwegians.

[pantarei]

It looks like the entire Bangkok area will look like the Mississippi delta as the water comes up.

Add to that Al Gore just won the Nobel for his efforts to bring the global warming issue to the front of the line, and it does not paint a rosy picture.

This thread is a classic. Most posts were written by individuals who have too much time and believe they are sooo much smarter than a Thai engineer.

Here is the link to the paper written by Dr. Vongvisessomjai

Will sea-level really fall in the Gulf of Thailand?

Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol., 2006, 28(2) : 227-248

http://www2.psu.ac.th/PresidentOffice/EduS..._level_fall.pdf.

Here is what he said:

<<3. In conclusion, the sea-level in the Gulf of Thailand was found preliminarily falling slightly or not changing, contradicting to the belief that sealevel is rising in the Gulf of Thailand at the same rate as that in the high and middle latitudes.

4. More comprehensive investigation on sea-level fall in the Gulf of Thailand should be made as follows: …>>

He never ever mentioned proximity to glaciers. Of course, it is much easier to write clueless, insulting posts than to spend a few minutes and find out what Vongvisessomjai actually wrote.

The initial discussion on this thread has now shifted to “global warming” (GW) and Prof Dr Gore.

Many statements about GW are misleading, beginning with the term “global warming”. There are many drivers of climate: influx of solar energy (variation in the earth’s albedo, variations in earths’ orbit and rotation, variations in solar energy output), distribution of oceans and continents, volcanic activity, etc, etc. The “experts” such as Gore avoid using the term “anthropogenic global warming” because they want the sheeples to believe that global warming is caused mostly (solely?) by humans.

The bottom line is the fact that “global warming” is a hypothesis. Contrary to Gore’s lies there is no consensus among scientists on this issue.

<<The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.>>

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

Other articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/ngreen211.xml

A interesting technical publication: S.B. Idso, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona; Carbon dioxide-induced global warming: A skeptic’s view of potential climate change, Climate Research, 1998, v.10, pp.69-82.

[John K]

It looks like the entire Bangkok area will look like the Mississippi delta as the water comes up.

Add to that Al Gore just won the Nobel for his efforts to bring the global warming issue to the front of the line, and it does not paint a rosy picture.

This thread is a classic. Most posts were written by individuals who have too much time and believe they are sooo much smarter than a Thai engineer.

Here is the link to the paper written by Dr. Vongvisessomjai

Will sea-level really fall in the Gulf of Thailand?

Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol., 2006, 28(2) : 227-248

http://www2.psu.ac.th/PresidentOffice/EduS..._level_fall.pdf.

Here is what he said:

<<3. In conclusion, the sea-level in the Gulf of Thailand was found preliminarily falling slightly or not changing, contradicting to the belief that sealevel is rising in the Gulf of Thailand at the same rate as that in the high and middle latitudes.

4. More comprehensive investigation on sea-level fall in the Gulf of Thailand should be made as follows: …>>

He never ever mentioned proximity to glaciers. Of course, it is much easier to write clueless, insulting posts than to spend a few minutes and find out what Vongvisessomjai actually wrote.

The initial discussion on this thread has now shifted to “global warming” (GW) and Prof Dr Gore.

Many statements about GW are misleading, beginning with the term “global warming”. There are many drivers of climate: influx of solar energy (variation in the earth’s albedo, variations in earths’ orbit and rotation, variations in solar energy output), distribution of oceans and continents, volcanic activity, etc, etc. The “experts” such as Gore avoid using the term “anthropogenic global warming” because they want the sheeples to believe that global warming is caused mostly (solely?) by humans.

The bottom line is the fact that “global warming” is a hypothesis. Contrary to Gore’s lies there is no consensus among scientists on this issue.

<<The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.>>

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

Other articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/ngreen211.xml

A interesting technical publication: S.B. Idso, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona; Carbon dioxide-induced global warming: A skeptic’s view of potential climate change, Climate Research, 1998, v.10, pp.69-82.

You know after Gore won the Nobel prize I took a moment to watch again his presentation “an inconvenient truth.” Besides what my own eyes are telling me that there are many more category 5 hurricanes and some pushing up to where category 6 would be if there was such a category, there is no doubt in my mind that I agree with what is being said by Al Gore. I particularly agree with the part of the movie where he shows there is deliberate misleading by non scientific people that includes edits to documents presented by scientists. I don’t need anyone to explain the data anymore, it matches what I see, so deciding who to believe is from the last chapter and not this chapter.

Essentially the tipping point is nearing where the cost of doing nothing out weighs the cost of doing the right thing.

As for Bangkok becoming the next Veness, it certainly looks that way. The only out I can see is if seismic activity rases the area.

[midas]

You know after Gore won the Nobel prize I took a moment to watch again his presentation “an inconvenient truth.” Besides what my own eyes are telling me that there are many more category 5 hurricanes and some pushing up to where category 6 would be if there was such a category, there is no doubt in my mind that I agree with what is being said by Al Gore. I particularly agree with the part of the movie where he shows there is deliberate misleading by non scientific people that includes edits to documents presented by scientists. I don’t need anyone to explain the data anymore, it matches what I see, so deciding who to believe is from the last chapter and not this chapter.

Essentially the tipping point is nearing where the cost of doing nothing out weighs the cost of doing the right thing.

As for Bangkok becoming the next Veness, it certainly looks that way. The only out I can see is if seismic activity rases the area.

" I do not believe nicotine is addictive " - BLOODY RUBBISH !! if scientists were prepared to lie through their teeth

then on that issue why wouldn't they lie just as blatantly today ?

Why on earth should we believe any scientists who again have any vested interest directly or indirectly- you just need to look around you

and you can see Al Gore's warnings are fact !

[John K]

You know after Gore won the Nobel prize I took a moment to watch again his presentation “an inconvenient truth.” Besides what my own eyes are telling me that there are many more category 5 hurricanes and some pushing up to where category 6 would be if there was such a category, there is no doubt in my mind that I agree with what is being said by Al Gore. I particularly agree with the part of the movie where he shows there is deliberate misleading by non scientific people that includes edits to documents presented by scientists. I don’t need anyone to explain the data anymore, it matches what I see, so deciding who to believe is from the last chapter and not this chapter.

Essentially the tipping point is nearing where the cost of doing nothing out weighs the cost of doing the right thing.

As for Bangkok becoming the next Veness, it certainly looks that way. The only out I can see is if seismic activity rases the area.

" I do not believe nicotine is addictive " - BLOODY RUBBISH !! if scientists were prepared to lie through their teeth

then on that issue why wouldn't they lie just as blatantly today ?

Why on earth should we believe any scientists who again have any vested interest directly or indirectly- you just need to look around you

and you can see Al Gore's warnings are fact !

Yes we agree, the scientists agree with what Al Gore is saying, global warming is a fact. Watch the movie again, the edits are done by non scientists to produce doubt because the truth is inconvenient.

[JetsetBkk]

The bottom line is the fact that “global warming” is a hypothesis. Contrary to Gore’s lies there is no consensus among scientists on this issue.

<<The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.>>

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

Other articles:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jh...09/ixworld.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...1/ngreen211.xml

A interesting technical publication: S.B. Idso, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona; Carbon dioxide-induced global warming: A skeptic’s view of potential climate change, Climate Research, 1998, v.10, pp.69-82.

Thanks for those links - all bookmarked and saved for the next time the 'Global Warming' bandwagon jumpers start spouting their nonsense.

Here's another one:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0823/p02s01-wogi.html

"When researchers checked, they found that the agency had merged two data sets that had been incorrectly assumed to match. When the data were corrected, it resulted in a decrease of 0.27 degrees Fahrenheit in yearly temperatures since 2000 and a smaller decrease in earlier years. That meant that 1998, which had been 0.02 degrees warmer than 1934, was now 0.04 degrees cooler."

Put another way, the new figures show that 4 of the 10 warmest years in the US occurred during the 1930s, not more recently. This caused a stir among those critical of the push to stem human-induced climate change.

[londonthai]

so why the great majority of the governments did sign the kyoto agreement?

do you think they did put restrictions on the greed of the ruling class they do represent, if there was no an important reason?

[Richard W]

Here is the Bangkok new airport after:

1 meter rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=13.6920,100....amp;m=1&t=2

2 meter rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=13.6920,100....amp;m=2&t=2

3 meter rise: http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=13.6920,100....amp;m=3&t=2

It doesn't look so good with a 0 metre rise!

[brahmburgers]

The bottom line is the fact that “global warming” is a hypothesis. Contrary to Gore’s lies there is no consensus among scientists on this issue.

I haven't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' yet, though I have read a lot of paper on global warming - from various perspectives. It's the rype of grand theory that is easy to poke holes at if one is so inclined. I could poke holes at astrology, at dousing, at palm reading, - even at the purported fact that there are large clumps of frozen rocks floating out beyond the orbit of Neptune. All sorts of things that we can't prove or disprove with 100% concrete scientific evidence.

However, I do strongly believe the planet is steadily warming (even if some detractors don't like the tern 'global warming'). I believe it, for the main reason: because there is so much reliable scientific data that shows that the polar regions are losing a lot of ice that is not being replaced - some estimates as high as 100 cubic miles annually from Antarctica, the Arctic, Greenland, and various glaciers (all but one of 20 major glaciers surveyed worldwide).

I doubt that Gore purports to present ALL pertinent data, as that would be near impossible. He's a generalist, and we need all types of smart people to assist with the increasingly torrent of data that's available to anyone with an internet connection.

so why the great majority of the governments did sign the kyoto agreement?

do you think they did put restrictions on the greed of the ruling class they do represent, if there was no an important reason?

Kyoto was flawed because some of the biggest polluters (China, India, Indonesia, et. al.) were exempted. Bush knew that (and rightly didn't approve of Kyoto) although he was not adept at articulating it to the world audience. I also disagree with 'carbon credits' (they're just a way for rich corporations to pay to pollute) but that's another topic.

[John K]

The bottom line is the fact that “global warming” is a hypothesis. Contrary to Gore’s lies there is no consensus among scientists on this issue.

I haven't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' yet, though I have read a lot of paper on global warming - from various perspectives. It's the rype of grand theory that is easy to poke holes at if one is so inclined. I could poke holes at astrology, at dousing, at palm reading, - even at the purported fact that there are large clumps of frozen rocks floating out beyond the orbit of Neptune. All sorts of things that we can't prove or disprove with 100% concrete scientific evidence.

However, I do strongly believe the planet is steadily warming (even if some detractors don't like the tern 'global warming'). I believe it, for the main reason: because there is so much reliable scientific data that shows that the polar regions are losing a lot of ice that is not being replaced - some estimates as high as 100 cubic miles annually from Antarctica, the Arctic, Greenland, and various glaciers (all but one of 20 major glaciers surveyed worldwide).

I doubt that Gore purports to present ALL pertinent data, as that would be near impossible. He's a generalist, and we need all types of smart people to assist with the increasingly torrent of data that's available to anyone with an internet connection.

so why the great majority of the governments did sign the kyoto agreement?

do you think they did put restrictions on the greed of the ruling class they do represent, if there was no an important reason?

Kyoto was flawed because some of the biggest polluters (China, India, Indonesia, et. al.) were exempted. Bush knew that (and rightly didn't approve of Kyoto) although he was not adept at articulating it to the world audience. I also disagree with 'carbon credits' (they're just a way for rich corporations to pay to pollute) but that's another topic.

Oh My brahmburgers, It appears somehow the text you copied on my quote has been edited and is all wrong and reverses the meaning. The fact is I do agree with what Al Gore is saying.

I would not worry to much about the non believers, in every disaster movie I have seen there are always people running in the wrong direction.

[JetsetBkk]

As for Bangkok becoming the next Veness, it certainly looks that way. The only out I can see is if seismic activity rases the area.

--------------------

John Krukowski, C.H.

Search for the positive and you shall find it.

Search for the negative and you shall find it.

You will always find and often become what you are searching for.

Veness??

Keep searching for the positive, John. Keep searching.

[ace]

The bottom line is the fact that “global warming” is a hypothesis. Contrary to Gore’s lies there is no consensus among scientists on this issue.

I haven't seen 'An Inconvenient Truth' yet, though I have read a lot of paper on global warming - from various perspectives. It's the rype of grand theory that is easy to poke holes at if one is so inclined. I could poke holes at astrology, at dousing, at palm reading, - even at the purported fact that there are large clumps of frozen rocks floating out beyond the orbit of Neptune. All sorts of things that we can't prove or disprove with 100% concrete scientific evidence.

This is the type of scientific analysis much favored by global warming believers. Astrology, dousing, palm reading are disprovable using scientific method, the large rocks are provable. Global warming is provable, but the cause is not. We have relatively recently (18,000 years ago) come out of a regular 100,000 year ice age period and are in a planetary warming period. The last inter-glacial period (about 125,000 years) peaked at 2 degrees warmer than at present. Therefore there is evidence to show warming is part of the natural cycle. And there are various issues with the theory, for example, what about the cooling effect of particulates? So although there is evidence, there's also a lot of bad science around.

[Johpa]

This is the type of scientific analysis much favored by global warming believers. Astrology, dousing, palm reading are disprovable using scientific method, the large rocks are provable. Global warming is provable, but the cause is not. We have relatively recently (18,000 years ago) come out of a regular 100,000 year ice age period and are in a planetary warming period. The last inter-glacial period (about 125,000 years) peaked at 2 degrees warmer than at present. Therefore there is evidence to show warming is part of the natural cycle. And there are various issues with the theory, for example, what about the cooling effect of particulates? So although there is evidence, there's also a lot of bad science around.

Balderdash! There is plenty of evidence to show increased levels of carbon dioxide as a result of human activities is real and affecting the planet, such as the increased pH level of the oceans. To equate previous global changes in climate that were very gradual and allowed for some life adaptation with the current instant changes, geologically speaking, is ridiculous. The only scientists arguing against global warming are those funded by the large corporations who do not want to lose profits if people change their behavior patterns, specifically the big Oil companies, the same people who brought you the inconvenient non-truths of the Iraq war. The only media channel propagating the concept that the current global warming is simply a natural occurring climate change, the propagandist term that the oil companies prefer for global warming, is the Murdoch controlled global media channels, Murdoch the public apologist for his fellow ruling class members who want to keep the rabble stupid. One of their favorite faux logic tactics is the ad hominen attack, and we see the overspill in this thread as fellow apologists criticize even the Norwegians, a group of people I have found rather likable. You don't have to like Al Gore to see that his cause his just.