Global Warming Do You Care?

[lannarebirth]

My father was a fairly smart man and one of the many things I remember him for was something he said to me in 1970. He said something akin to, "this global warming nonsense is scandalous and all of it created by the media just to sell newspapers". What troubles me is that, if all of the global warming nonsense is just, well, nonsense, why were people talking about it, albeit with very small and low voices, back in 1970 and if it has nothing to do with what we think it is all about, what's it all about?. Clearly it has nothing to do with selling newspapers.

My recollection of that time is that most of the climate change talk centered around "the coming Ice Age".

[LinkPopularity]

well, sure there's climate change and all of that, but why aren't we talking about the big hole in the ozon layer?

well, because we fixed it ... same with global warming; there's no reason to panic !

[wilko]

I have just been watching BBC world news and its plight against global warming, where by the reporter was in India pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that someone who has more money a car/apartment etc… uses more CO2 then someone who cant afford to buy excesses of food a car etc…. (The BBC had more reporters then any other foreign news network in the last US elections so they don't really care about global warming)

In the UK we have recently had Lord Goldsmiths son Zac, a 30 year old who has wealth in the region of 100s of millions pounds bracket, who I am presuming has several properties throughout the world, servants, flies first class etc etc……, and basically has a huge as they say "carbon footprint".

We have also recently had the hypocrite Al Gore win a Nobel Peace prize for his work on climate change yet in government CO2 emissions in the USA increased. I also would be willing to bet he enjoys the same extravagances as Zac Goldsmith.

Now as it is in the news all the time about the imminent threat of global warming, with the wealthy claiming to care yet living as if there was no tomorrow I am of the opinion that all of us in THAILAND who travel frequently, either couldn't care less about global warming or are just hypocrites.

I am interested to get the views of people who travel frequently to THAILAND on the issue of global warming to see if they really do care, and if so what do they cut down on too prove they care.

Or if it is the liberal media making there own agenda.

A troll right? just to get the pig ignorant to display themselves? Well my God it's worked! I didn't real;ise that so many members of Thai Visa were also members of the Flat Earth Society.......actually, I did.

Edited November 12, 2007 by wilko

[Upcountry]

Flat-earth, indeed, Wilko. Gore's book/movie was the most inspired title I've heard of in years. "An Inconvenient Truth" - so true!

Why wait until we're fat and dying to realize we could have cut back just a little at each meal, etc. Applying the notion that the simplest explanation is often correct, look at the massive increase in human population and the increase in man-made poison we spew into the atmosphere and oceans. Yeah, the earth is big by human standards, but we clearly are a huge and pernicious parasite on Mother Earth. If she finds a way to get rid of us, all the better for her. At least smart parasites know how to keep the host alive!

Rich or not, it's a challenge to change life style. I forget to take energy saving actions all the time (often say "Sorry, Al" when I do. ). But anyone who says "there's nothing I can do" on this forum is either being trollish, non-serious or is simply jai dam. Choosing energy saving light bulbs, installing insulation, choosing to walk more (far part of the parking lot at least) are just small things we can do. If everyone does just a little to save energy, the sum savings will be greater than the whole.

It's clear that new power plants can be avoided if power demand drops just a little for each user.

I think another aspect of personal responsibility is being educated about things like the causes of global warming and energy efficiency. Again, the shear population and increasing demand with affluence makes this a necessity.

I recently learned that gasohol is not the "clean" alternative that it is often sold to be. In fact, scientific studies have shown that gasohol is marginally more polluting and carcinogenic than regular old gasoline. Not only that, but it's in the news all the time now (yet seemingly being ignored by policy makers) that using food crops to create gasohol is actually raising the cost of food! How stupid is that?

It's actually feasible now to create gasohol with non-food sources. They call it cellulosic ethanol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

It is less energy intensive to create and doesn't cut into the food supply, makes use of waste materials, so as individuals we can be brow beating our policy makers to develop that system instead of going down the deadly dead end we started with food-based ethanol. This important whether you believe in global warming or not.

Those who like to believe that there is nothing they can do should consider the math of automobile mileage. Every mile per gallon saved means a lot over the course of a year, etc., not to mention "fleet-wide". Small actions, savings, add up. If you can, consider a hybrid for your next car. Or, here in Thailand, pester policy makers to promote them.

I admit that I often behave hypocritically. I talk a good game, but I constantly realize that I forgot to turn something off, or that I've chosen to waste electricity for comfort or some project that may not be worth the energy I'm using. I hit the gas to hard when I drive sometimes. Al has shown that these choices have consequences.

I'm just aware that we can get away with today we may not be able to do in a few years. At some point, one crisis or another will force us to ration water, electricity, and so on. Small steps now may help avoid those big steps later!

Spew away!

[Chloe82]

There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.

[lazeeboy]

i care ,not for me but my kids and there kids ,wont affect my life but in 50 years will /maybe affect theres

[plachon]

perhaps you would be so good as to finish off your original sentence in your original post about what you collectively "had" Zac Goldsmith over???? Maybe you caught him out in a game of rounders or poker?

We had young Zac on TV with Dave Cameron dictating to us naughty proles about our need to reduce CO2 emissions.

Ah, that was where you "had" him. But as they both are in the opposition party, it is difficult to imagine how they could be "dictating" to you. And I thought it was you who was the political expert?

And as for the notion that the UK fuel price doesn't "stop people from driving" only goes to show that the tax is still too low and fuel should have higher taxes added to it, so people would think twice before jumping into their Landrovers or Chevrolet Jeeps every time they wanted to nip down Tescos for their fuel hungry food fix.

But if Mr brown doubled the price of fuel, Mr Cameron would say i am going to make it cheaper and more people would wave blue ribbons in the air, proles dont like taxes or have governments telling them what to do you know.

Surely this would be a good thing, as then the electorate could decide what they wanted, and so then there would be no need for any "dictating" by government. The proles could decide whether they want a green Labour party or a black (the colur of oil) and blue (the colour of Tory blood) Conservative Party in power. Ah, the joys of a democracy........ Only trouble is, as you pointed out yourself, the Tories are greener than the Labour party at this moment in time, so the proles are in a right fix, eh?

There is also the small matter of inflation that this tax hike would lead to, and all them horrible little workers would no longer have a job as the economy would go bang.

Not if we replaced it with a non oil-addicted economy alternative. In fact, the workers might well have more work - consider the number of people it would take to plough a field sans oil? Less unemployment, less pollution and less tax. Everyone's a winner babe!

But at least I'm glad to see that the term "Carbon Footprint" has reached the vocabulary of the mentally-challenged (but filthy rich), even if they haven't a clue what it's implications are.

It was home counties folk such as yourself who coined this phrase. I use it as sparingly as possible.

How do you know I'm from the "home counties"? And who did coin the phrase "carbon footprint" as a matter of interest, as you seem so well-versed in the subject. It's only a pity you don't burn carbon as sparingly as possible. Hope you don't have any children by the way.

Where have i said i believe global warming does or doesnt exist, i hinted that if it does i wont be changing my lifestyle, and IMO that the majority of folks wont either.

One last question: How do you know that Zac Goldsmith is worth 100's of millions of quid? Any evidence you can provide? Or just your armchair prejudice?

Because daddy is James Goldsmith who was worth 100s of millions if not billions and one day James jumped on the big big escalator up to the sky, and when he did so he left young Zacary and Jemima (Khan) a pretty penny to play with.

I have no prejudice against wealth though i am prejudice towards environmentalist hypocrites dictating to society.

Ah, so it's just prejudice against people that are better bred, better educated, more eloquent and in-line to inherit a fortune that you have a problem with, eh? So he's a toff and you dislike him for it? Get over it. It also has little bearing on whether Zac himself has a large carbon footprint or not, how much he's worth. It's how much he consumes, travels and lives his life that determines his footprint. Thus, the millionaire that rarely travels, stashes all his loot in the bank, grows his own food and recycles everything, has a far lower carbon footprint than the prole who goes everywhere by a gas-guzzling car, flies several times a year to Benidorm and Pattaya, eats most of his meals at fast food joints, can't be bothered with the environment and fails to recycle anything.

It seems to me you have far more of a problem with the concept of inheritance than Zac's credentials otherwise. So, I can assume you'll not be passing any of your ample wealth onto your children? So, which cause are you going to support when you pop your clogs - Friends of the Earth or Greenpeace?

[Upcountry]

There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.

More proof that people should have to pass a test to get a license to live!

[wilko]

There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.

Hello and welcome to Thai Visa! and your first flame....

there's also not a shred of evidence that you have a single functioning brain cell!

[Chloe82]

There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.

Hello and welcome to Thai Visa! and your first flame....

there's also not a shred of evidence that you have a single functioning brain cell!

Okay, thanks for taking the time to abuse me personaly, i feel honoured, it must make you feel like a real man.

Over the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods that were distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred around 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but still remain below the 3,000-year average.

[Chloe82]

There is enough evidence to point to anthropological warming (the link between the rise in GHGs and temperatures). I have never stated its an absolute fact - please show me where I have. But the possible impacts of global warming are so catastrophic its prudent to take action (provided its not to the detrement of development etc etc) by reducing the build up of GHGs, principally CO2, which contribute to the worsening greenhouse effect. Even big oil says as much!

Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

[nakhonsi sean]

Chloe82 Posted Today, 2007-11-12 17:32:37

Over the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods that were distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred around 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but still remain below the 3,000-year average.

Absolutely. Also for the last 10,000 years of the holocene the temperature has shown a small but steady decline. Those five warm periods were also caused by something other than anthropogenic GHGs. None of the past warming events over the last 500 million years can be attributed to Co2. There have also been periods when Co2 levels have been up to 17 times higher than present but temperatures have been 5-10 C lower.

Doza posted Today, 2007-11-12 14:55:15

Your English seems somewhat ill educated I'm afraid.

There is enough evidence to point to anthropological warming (the link between the rise in GHGs and temperatures). I have never stated its an absolute fact - please show me where I have. But the possible impacts of global warming are so catastrophic its prudent to take action (provided its not to the detrement of development etc etc) by reducing the build up of GHGs, principally CO2, which contribute to the worsening greenhouse effect. Even big oil says as much!

Yes, I am no grammar expert. However, the evidence for anthropogenic warming is very tenuous to say the least. Catastrophic impacts from global warming come from very dubious GCMs. I have yet to read a convincing paper that espouses any events depicted in Gore's seriously flawed Oscar winner. GHGs and the temperature record have a very poor link this century and a link the wrong way round for the long term record, temp. goes up, Co2 follows on average about 800 years later!

Edited November 12, 2007 by nakhonsi sean

[Doza]

Ha ha, you naysayers make me laugh trying to convince us with your 'science'. For real climate science I will go to credible, independant experts. And there are plenty of them who have plenty of evidence that links the rise of GHGs with a rise of average temperatures and the global warming phenomena.

But wait, they are all part of a world wide money making rip off scam right?

[nakhonsi sean]

Having posted comments on my sceptical views of anthropogenic global warming and seeing others do so, it is a shame that proponents of the theory have to denigrate others with terms such as flat-earthers, deniers etc.. Is this because the science behind Co2 and GW is so shaky?

[Upcountry]

Over the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods that were distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred around 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but still remain below the 3,000-year average.

Okey dokey, chloe,

Please be a real woman and show the scientific charts the proof the recent rapid increase in temperatures is in line with the trends you lean on to believe that mankind cannot impact the environment for good or bad with its huge population of consumers/polluters.

Seriously, point taken that the Earth has gone through major fluctuations over the eons, but it is a clear trigger to state so unequivocally that mankind's use of resources and output of garbage is inconsequential. We're all in this together so it really isn't about all or nothing (turn out the lights!), it's about being responsible for our energy decisions and at least starting to make responsible choices.

I'm thinking about an extension to the house, and I hope to make it as energy efficient as I can, using insulation and maybe even installing solar panels.

I'm not sure if it is true for all those who bristle at the global warming concerns popping up everywhere, but I think a lot of it is a reaction to being told yet one more thing that the should or should not do, like a smoker being told there is one more place he or she can't light up. Even if we don't care about what will happen 20 years from now for ourselves, what about the next generation?

They'll be asking us how we could live the way we did.

[Doza]

The Royal Society is a great example of a respected scientific institute. Read what they say about it here:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

If the science was so shaky and there was a mass of evidence to discredit the anthropogenic global warming theory, companies like Exxon would still be denying it. But they aren't. No one really is any more, well no one from any preeminent institutions anyway. But feel free to give us another science lesson - I'll take mine from the likes of the Royal Society thanks.

[Doza]

For those too lazy to click on the link, here's the summary:

"Our scientific understanding of climate change is sufficiently sound to make us highly confident that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. Science moves forward by challenge and debate and this will continue. However, none of the current criticisms of climate science, nor the alternative explanations of global warming are well enough founded to make not taking any action the wise choice. The science clearly points to the need for nations to take urgent steps to cut greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as much and as fast as possible, to reduce the more severe aspects of climate change. We must also prepare for the impacts of climate change, some of which are already inevitable.

But hey, what do they know right? Its all a conspiracy and we are better off doing nothing...............................

[plachon]

There is enough evidence to point to anthropological warming (the link between the rise in GHGs and temperatures). I have never stated its an absolute fact - please show me where I have. But the possible impacts of global warming are so catastrophic its prudent to take action (provided its not to the detrement of development etc etc) by reducing the build up of GHGs, principally CO2, which contribute to the worsening greenhouse effect. Even big oil says as much!

Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

I know I really shouldn't feed a trollette, even if she does live on Sathorn (or is she under one of the bridges down by the Chao Phraya?), but where do you get this stuff from Chloe darling?

Yes, biodiversity isn't disappearing at an alarming rate on every continent; yes, the Amazon and every other rain forest on earth is positively blooming as it soaks up all that blessed CO2 we're so thoughtfully producing for it; and no, folks there is no need to worry, because every gallon of oil you burn, is one for the plants and animals. Get rid of your bikes now and buy an SUV for the wildlife now! Chloe says it's ok! What a wonderful and unexpected gift of a person you must be love.

[howtoescape]

Surely this would be a good thing, as then the electorate could decide what they wanted, and so then there would be no need for any "dictating" by government. The proles could decide whether they want a green Labour party or a black (the colur of oil) and blue (the colour of Tory blood) Conservative Party in power. Ah, the joys of a democracy........ Only trouble is, as you pointed out yourself, the Tories are greener than the Labour party at this moment in time, so the proles are in a right fix, eh?

There are more the 2 parties in UK politics and the people just arent interested in voting for the Green Party. The Tories and Labour are two faces of the same coin and environmental policies are almost identical only marketed differently. There is nothing radical in either party other then higher taxes, what is your problem with people having the right to drive to Tesco.

Not if we replaced it with a non oil-addicted economy alternative. In fact, the workers might well have more work - consider the number of people it would take to plough a field sans oil? Less unemployment, less pollution and less tax. Everyone's a winner babe!

What is the "non oil-addicted economy alternative" you speak of, please answer this we are all dying to know.

And you seriously think if there were an alternative to oil there would be less tax, how would we pay for the NHS, schools, dole scroungers etc....

Anyway this government likes to keep wages low and have created mass imigration to do so, helps keep inflation low and the economy bubbling away nicely, at least for the Bourgeois.

How do you know I'm from the "home counties"?

I dont but you have that want to be delusion of superior arrogance in your writing, 3 years at University some time ago, plaguarising Marx can do that to a man.

One last question: How do you know that Zac Goldsmith is worth 100's of millions of quid? Any evidence you can provide? Or just your armchair prejudice?

Ah, so it's just prejudice against people that are better bred, better educated, more eloquent and in-line to inherit a fortune that you have a problem with, eh? So he's a toff and you dislike him for it?

READ IT SLOWER THIS TIME.

I have no prejudice against wealth though i am prejudice towards environmentalist hypocrites dictating to society.

has a far lower carbon footprint than the prole who goes everywhere by a gas-guzzling car, flies several times a year to Benidorm and Pattaya, eats most of his meals at fast food joints, can't be bothered with the environment and fails to recycle anything.

I dont have a car, and dont like Pattaya, how is Benidorm ive never been, but i just had a lovely Burger flown in all the way from Australia at the Outback restaurant in Siam Square.

[quiksilva]

I most certainly care, but I am not convinced that its as bad as they say, but neither do I think its a hoax. Neither side's argument is truly convincing. I think the truth lies somewhere in between.

I don't buy that increased hydrocarbons is good for the planet, it seems outlandish and doesn't seem to account for other factors such as deforestation, but what are the rates of recovery of these forests? They do grow back, but how quickly? Is it enough?

I think this is where the problem lies, there are just too many factors involved and when you look at any single element in isolation you look at it out of context and its true nature and impact on the planet's health is lost.

The problem is that we have no way of knowing if what is happening will be good or bad for the planet because we only have Earth and nothing to compare it with. All anyone on either side of the argument can put forward is a best guess.

So when in doubt I prefer to err on the side of caution. So when it comes to environmental issues I think we should use what we have in moderation and certainly using less will not hurt anyone.

[Cobalt60]

The problem now is, the dont care's are not replying, because they dont care, the one who is bothering is being patronised ( love) and abused by the voices of the 'true believers', as usual the minority engulf the majority.

Me, I am still trying to get warm after Mount St Helens erupted and bought on that mini ice age.

[altman]

...

We have also recently had the hypocrite Al Gore win a Nobel Peace prize for his work on climate change ...

...

Or ... is the liberal media making there own agenda.

definitely the liberal media, as represented by rupert murdoch, that is causing the obviously unwarranted scare.

not to mention the only man who is consistently trying to bring the issue to light, that hypocrite, al gore.

good calls, both.

do i care? only to the extent that i care about the future of civilization. so, not much.

euthanasiaclinic.com.

make a difference in the impact of your life on global warming.

[Upcountry]

Hydrocarbon use has major environmental benefits. A great deal of research has shown that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permit plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also increases.Standing timber in the United States has already increased by 30% since 1950. There are now 60 tons of timber for every American. Tree-ring studies further confirm this spectacular increase in tree growth rates. It has also been found that mature Amazonian rain forests are increasing in biomass at about two tons per acre per year. A composite of 279 research studies predicts that overall plant growth rates will ultimately double as carbon dioxide increases.

What mankind is doing is moving hydrocarbons from below ground and turning them into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

Check this out:

Amazon burning

Vicious cycle of droughts and fires is depleting rain forest; scientists warn of serious consequences for global climate

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_sc...amazon_burning/

Amazon Fire Wars Exacerbate Global Warming

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...toryId=16018097

The environmental crisis (and it is a crisis for us, whether we are just victims or perpetrators) is much more complicated than most of us realize.

[Felt 35]

Flat-earth, indeed, Wilko. Gore's book/movie was the most inspired title I've heard of in years. "An Inconvenient Truth" - so true!

Why wait until we're fat and dying to realize we could have cut back just a little at each meal, etc. Applying the notion that the simplest explanation is often correct, look at the massive increase in human population and the increase in man-made poison we spew into the atmosphere and oceans. Yeah, the earth is big by human standards, but we clearly are a huge and pernicious parasite on Mother Earth. If she finds a way to get rid of us, all the better for her. At least smart parasites know how to keep the host alive!

Rich or not, it's a challenge to change life style. I forget to take energy saving actions all the time (often say "Sorry, Al" when I do. ). But anyone who says "there's nothing I can do" on this forum is either being trollish, non-serious or is simply jai dam. Choosing energy saving light bulbs, installing insulation, choosing to walk more (far part of the parking lot at least) are just small things we can do. If everyone does just a little to save energy, the sum savings will be greater than the whole.

It's clear that new power plants can be avoided if power demand drops just a little for each user.

I think another aspect of personal responsibility is being educated about things like the causes of global warming and energy efficiency. Again, the shear population and increasing demand with affluence makes this a necessity.

I recently learned that gasohol is not the "clean" alternative that it is often sold to be. In fact, scientific studies have shown that gasohol is marginally more polluting and carcinogenic than regular old gasoline. Not only that, but it's in the news all the time now (yet seemingly being ignored by policy makers) that using food crops to create gasohol is actually raising the cost of food! How stupid is that?

It's actually feasible now to create gasohol with non-food sources. They call it cellulosic ethanol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulosic_ethanol

It is less energy intensive to create and doesn't cut into the food supply, makes use of waste materials, so as individuals we can be brow beating our policy makers to develop that system instead of going down the deadly dead end we started with food-based ethanol. This important whether you believe in global warming or not.

Those who like to believe that there is nothing they can do should consider the math of automobile mileage. Every mile per gallon saved means a lot over the course of a year, etc., not to mention "fleet-wide". Small actions, savings, add up. If you can, consider a hybrid for your next car. Or, here in Thailand, pester policy makers to promote them.

I admit that I often behave hypocritically. I talk a good game, but I constantly realize that I forgot to turn something off, or that I've chosen to waste electricity for comfort or some project that may not be worth the energy I'm using. I hit the gas to hard when I drive sometimes. Al has shown that these choices have consequences.

I'm just aware that we can get away with today we may not be able to do in a few years. At some point, one crisis or another will force us to ration water, electricity, and so on. Small steps now may help avoid those big steps later!

Spew away!

Very well said.

[Doza]

We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of the carbon dioxide increase. Our children will enjoy an Earth with twice as much plant and animal life as that with which we now are blessed. This is a wonderful and unexpected gift from the industrial revolution.

This is one of the most outlandish crazy comments I have ever read!

[Spee]

John Coleman, one-time noted meteorologist from Chicago, turned co-founder of "The Weather Channel" calls the global warming propaganda the greatest scam in history:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1923356/posts

Anyone who submits to the propaganda has clearly been drinking too much of the koolaid.

I've read Coleman's paper. He does a good job of saying Global Warming is a manufactured news event but fails to provide an alternative cause for the symptoms we currently attribute to Global Warming. Sorry Jon, it's not enough to merely say it isn't real, you have to say what it is also.

Well, actually what he says is that for several years he researched all of the pertinent scientific papers that were written. In his opinion, the science behind the current global warming hoax is fundamentally flawed. He has actually stated that after reading the content of some of these papers, he was stunned that this kind of "research" and "findings" could have ever passed a peer review.

This is really the bigger problem, bigger than any hoax. The political propaganda and government policies are corrupting the scientific process, because of the control and influence that they exert over university research, funding, peer review processes, etc. If the funding of research grants and peer review processes are corrupted by political and government influence, then the science is inherently complicit in the corruption.

Coleman's stated belief is that the current global climate trends, and past global climate trends, are simply the result of normal fluctuation caused by elemental forces that almost infinitely dwarf similar contributions from mankind. Among other things, these are the sun and the oceans and the physical forces that act upon them. There is quite a large amount of non-corrupted scientific evidence to validate these contentions.

But his conclusion in truth is that no one knows for sure what the global climate will be in 5 or 10 or 20 years. There may be a large warming trend. There may be a large cooling trend. There isn't a sufficient amount of scientific data to verify one way or the other what will happen for sure. However, there is tons of scientific evidence that provides many indications that man's influence on the global climate is insignificant when compared to the forces of nature. I, for one, am in agreement with this conclusion.

Edit: I'll have to go back and check my archives. A long time ago at uni, I wrote a research paper of subversion, the spy game, ovethrowing governments, etc. I can't remember the author or title of one of my references, but I'll never forget one the author's quotes that I referenced in my paper. The quote was "A confused society is a controllable society."

In my opinion, this is exactly what is going on with the current global warming hoax. A relatively small group of people is attempting to exert influence on a much larger group of people for the purpose of instilling confusion and allowing the smaller group to push and promote an agenda on to the larger group. In the case of America, this agenda is clearly larger government control over peoples' lives and increased transfer of wealth through new government taxation.

Edited November 12, 2007 by Spee

[lannaman]

As a grandfather I am concerned about global warming. I am now restricting my visits back to my family in England to once a year. On my last visit I bought a webcam for both my daughters. Now once a week we link up live via webcam. It's great to see my four grandkids live. Therefore this minimises my air miles.

As we live in the country we need a car, and make do with a perfectly adaquate 1300 cc Toyo. Whenever feasible I cycle or use moped. We have installed Solar on our new house which gives a great supply of hot water, enough for a deep bath.

It's sad to see that some have posted that they don't care. Maybe if they live in Bangkok and it goes underwater in a few years time they will eat their words.

[Upcountry]

I'm a little confused about the notion that the global warming "warners' are perpetrating a hoax, and that these hoaxers are people in the power elite "that want increase taxation, etc.

A reading of current events shows that those in government and big business are the ones that have been least in support of global warming evidence. I'm not clear on where this memory comes from, but it seems to me that, if anything, research in support of global warming theories has actually been suppressed by governments such as we have under G. Bush, etc. The main reason that 'global warming' has become more of a topic of daily discussion is that Gore's book and movie made a big impact.

The best thing about all this is that we are talking about it, at least. A few year ago this wasn't the case.

An ironic boon is that Murdoch finally told his puppets at Fox, etc., to start "talking green". I haven't felt like tuning in to verify this, but it is true, I haven't heard that he bought stock in any renewable energy business. Maybe he did, and that's why! All for the good.

[popshirt]

I do care. But as long as we are not permitted to seriously discuss the issues around over-population, I have decided to go on with my life more or less as usual. It is still any person's "right" to have as many children as he/she wants, rich or poor or in-between. The world is drowning in babies and we still think it is "wonderful" that someone is pregnant. Maybe with her fourth or fifth child. In my view this is not only selfish but wrong. And don't throw statistics about that indicate that certain countries' population is declining; I am talking about world population. Believe me, immigration will soon take up the slack.

[Dupont]

There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.

More proof that people should have to pass a test to get a license to live!

This and the following post by wilko are proof of the shallowness of the liberal arguements.

The slightest anti-green post (very innocuous) has brought out two very full on flames, both with less in the way of adult argument than the post they are attacking. Keep it up kiddies!!

Well done on the left and please let us know when you revert to living in the jungle and pack in travelling round the world and boring us with your hippie presence.

wilko and upcountry, whilst you and your ilk are wringing your hands, the rest of us are having an absolutely top time of life!!!!!!! Waste yours if you want, but don't expect us to queue up to waste ours.