Global Warming Do You Care?

[wilko]

"Big fancy words from such a small minded mean spirited oaf. I wish you follow the last 5 words of your diatribe."

Well I'm flattered if you think my words are "big and fancy" that says a lot more about you than me. Basically as you seem to have missed the point it is an appraisal of the people and arguments presented on this thread and quite well founded an coherent, if somewhat derogatory....you seem to be including yourself - well that's the first sensible thing you've done.

[JetsetBkk]

The most interesting thing about this thread is not the topic or the arguments or their paucity but the outright ignorance of the flat earth brigade and the associated paranoia......

There is no discourse just a monotonous repetition of fallacious clap-trap by people who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. A total failure to see reality as it is, to wake up and smell the coffee.

These are the kind of people who get drunk and fight because they can't put their ideas into words. people who laugh loudly in case others realise they haven't understood the joke, people who think that every ethnically different person is trying to rip them off.....that a conspiracy lies behind every govt. policy (they forget that they elected them, that it's OK to hold an opinion even though it can't hold water because they don't know how to reason or change their mind.

A viewpoint is something that deserves respect only if it is backed up by serious thought, logic or theory, but the flat earth brigade just spend their time regurgitating arguments that went out with the arc (they probably believe that AND Jonah and the whale too!)

I've explained that I consider any rational argument here to be a waste of time...pearl before swine......this is NOT and argument it's a joke! An arena for fools! A spitoonful of wasted bile from a bunch of vacuous entities whose intelligence would put them below the humble amoeba in the food chain....I'm surprised that the mods have let it straggle on as it has nothing to do with Thailand (or global warming or caring about it) - any visitor seeing te rubbish put forward in this thread would be well excused to take one look and never come back.....

I disagree.

The most interesting thing about this thread is the venom coming from some of the "true believers" who insist on sharing their fears with the rest of us.

As for "paranoia", that is coming from the "true believers". Why should people who "don't believe" have any kind of paranoia? It just doesn't make sense.

There is no discourse just a monotonous repetition of fallacious clap-trap by people who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground. A total failure to see reality as it is, to wake up and smell the coffee.

Funny, I was thinking the same about you.

The rest of your post is similar to your others - just silly attempted put-downs that don't work, and flames.

Have a nice life. Try not to worry too much.

[mogoso]

"Big fancy words from such a small minded mean spirited oaf. I wish you follow the last 5 words of your diatribe."

Well I'm flattered if you think my words are "big and fancy" that says a lot more about you than me. Basically as you seem to have missed the point it is an appraisal of the people and arguments presented on this thread and quite well founded an coherent, if somewhat derogatory....you seem to be including yourself - well that's the first sensible thing you've done.

No what it means is your an over educated person embittered by the fact you wasted the education by accomplishing nothing substantial in your life.

You lash out at others who don't cowtow to your way of thinking, who don't bend to your will. But its the same in the real world away from the computer, and it makes the bile crawl up your throat.

Meanwhile I'll still keep plugging away to utilize my resources in an energy efficent lifestyle.

One of my top sales items in recent years has been solar water heaters for pools. I believe totally in renewable resources particularily in my own life, and have for over 40 years.

But I cannot buy the claptrap being pushed down my throat by gov'ts and Goreites such as yourself.

It's all about the money.

[ignoramus]

I arrive at the TV forum via The Nation's site. Today I see that the temp on Phrurua Mountain, or some mountain anyway, is 1 degree C.

Does anyone know - just for curiosity's sake - what the temp was before this fearflul global warming overtook us?

Was it maybe minus 5 or something? Are winter woolly sales taking off up there this year? Can one ski up there?

A week or so ago I read that somewhere up north - CM or CR perhaps - the temp was around 10 degrees.

Is it usually around 5 or so? Can one get a decent woolen beanie and long johns in CM these days?

I was thinking of spending a bit of time in LOS, as Sydney's winter was Global-Warming-COLD for me this year, but now I'm beginning to question the wisdom of such a move.

If I do come to LOS could anyone give me an idea of what kinds of warm gear I should bring? Is Goretex the go now? Should I perhaps just stay here and slowly freeze to death next winter, or can I survive do you think, in LOS's colder but not really cold weather? What am I saying...it's warmer isn't it...yes????

Sincere questions., one and all. I hate the cold and can't wait for GLOWARM to really kick in.

Oh, is the sun still out for as many hours as it was 16 years ago, oldtimers? Do the evenings get chilly at about 5pm nowadays? What are the water temps doing? Are they way down? Or way up???

Golly gee I'm confused. Please Mama tell me what's going on.......

[mogoso]

I arrive at the TV forum via The Nation's site. Today I see that the temp on.

If I do come to LOS could anyone give me an idea of what kinds of warm gear I should bring? Is Goretex the go now? Should I perhaps just stay here and slowly freeze to death next winter, or can I survive do you think, in LOS's colder but not really cold weather? What am I saying...it's warmer isn't it...yes????

Sincere questions., one and all. I hate the cold and can't wait for GLOWARM to really kick in.

Oh, is the sun still out for as many hours as it was 16 years ago, oldtimers? Do the evenings get chilly at about 5pm nowadays? What are the water temps doing? Are they way down? Or way up???

Golly gee I'm confused. Please Mama tell me what's going on.......

The temp in Chiang Mai today -------80-53f

Koh Samui----------------82-74

Korat----------------------80-59

Nong Khai-----------------77-57

Lampang------------------81-51

Sydney Aust----------------------71-65

It sounds perfectly delightful in all those places, while here in the sunny south of the US it'll be 57-39f

BTW most folks don't spend much time at the top of mountains, which although might be cooler offers no skiing. The Thais do ski, but it'll be on the top of water.

BTW I ain't your mama

[Spee]

I stand corrected .................. global warming causes EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

|

Yeah ..........right ................

[siamamerican]

Doza Posted Today, 2007-11-12 10:23:13

If you believe that mankind can have no impact on the environment (and therefore climate) you are just plain ignorant.

If you simply prefer to put your head in the sand, say there are worse that *could* happen, then so be it - just hope you don't have kids/grandkids/nephews or nieces who are going to have to live with the effects of planetary pollution and destruction the likes of you and your like have left on this planet for future generations to deal with long after you're gone.

Your reply seems somewhat ill educated. I doubt anyone would say we have no impact on the environment. However, this post is about global warming. To state, or imply, that anthropogenic global warming is a fact, as you do, shows a lack of understanding behind the science. The idea that it has been proven is incorrect. It is an as yet unproven hypothesis that has some data showing a marginal corellation between Co2 and temperature over the past 30 years but nothing prior to that.

There has been a direct correlation between Co2 and tempature for millions of years. It hasn't been proven that increased levels of Co2 caused by humans has caused global warming, because as the earth warms, more Co2 is created. Seems like a case of putting the cart in front of the horse. I'm lacking a vast knowledge on the subject, but that is how I see it.

Edited December 2, 2007 by siamamerican

[JetsetBkk]

There has been a direct correlation between Co2 and tempature for millions of years. It hasn't been proven that increased levels of Co2 caused by humans has caused global warming, because as the earth warms, more Co2 is created. Seems like a case of putting the cart in front of the horse. I'm lacking a vast knowledge on the subject, but that is how I see it.

- but not so much "cart before the horse", as "cause and effect" round the wrong way.

[TonyBlair]

Our effect on the environment, and in particular on climate change, is large and growing

To summarise my argument at the outset:

From the start of the industrial revolution more than 200 years ago, developed nations have achieved ever greater prosperity and higher living standards. But through this period our activities have come to affect our atmosphere, oceans, geology, chemistry and biodiversity.

What is now plain is that the emission of greenhouse gases, associated with industrialisation and strong economic growth from a world population that has increased sixfold in 200 years, is causing global warming at a rate that began as significant, has become alarming and is simply unsustainable in the long-term. And by long-term I do not mean centuries ahead. I mean within the lifetime of my children certainly; and possibly within my own. And by unsustainable, I do not mean a phenomenon causing problems of adjustment. I mean a challenge so far-reaching in its impact and irreversible in its destructive power, that it alters radically human existence.

The problem and let me state it frankly at the outset - is that the challenge is complicated politically by two factors. First, its likely effect will not be felt to its full extent until after the time for the political decisions that need to be taken, has passed. In other words, there is a mismatch in timing between the environmental and electoral impact. Secondly, no one nation alone can resolve it. It has no definable boundaries. Short of international action commonly agreed and commonly followed through, it is hard even for a large country to make a difference on its own.

But there is no doubt that the time to act is now. It is now that timely action can avert disaster. It is now that with foresight and will such action can be taken without disturbing the essence of our way of life, by adjusting behaviour not altering it entirely.

There is one further preliminary point. Just as science and technology has given us the evidence to measure the danger of climate change, so it can help us find safety from it. The potential for innovation, for scientific discovery and hence, of course for business investment and growth, is enormous. With the right framework for action, the very act of solving it can unleash a new and benign commercial force to take the action forward, providing jobs, technology spin-offs and new business opportunities as well as protecting the world we live in.

But the issue is urgent. If there is one message I would leave with you and with the British people today it is one of urgency.

Let me turn now to the evidence itself. The scientific evidence of global warming and climate change: UK leadership in environmental science

Apart from a diminishing handful of sceptics, there is a virtual worldwide scientific consensus on the scope of the problem. As long ago as 1988 concerned scientists set up an unprecedented Intergovernmental Panel to ensure that advice to the world's decision-makers was sound and reliable.

Literally thousands of scientists are now engaged in this work. They have scrutinised the data and developed some of the world's most powerful computer models to describe and predict our climate.

UK excellence in science is well documented: we are second only to the US in our share of the world's most cited publications.

And amongst our particular strengths are the environmental sciences, lead by the world-renowned Hadley and Tyndall centres for climate change research.

And from Arnold Schwarzenegger's California to Ningxia Province in China, the problem is being recognised.

Let me summarise the evidence:

- The 10 warmest years on record have all been since 1990. Over the last century average global temperatures have risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius: the most drastic temperature rise for over 1,000 years in the northern hemisphere.

- Extreme events are becoming more frequent. Glaciers are melting. Sea ice and snow cover is declining. Animals and plants are responding to an earlier spring. Sea levels are rising and are forecast to rise another 88cm by 2100 threatening 100m people globally who currently live below this level.

- The number of people affected by floods worldwide has already risen from 7 million in the 1960s to 150 million today.

- In Europe alone, the severe floods in 2002 and had an estimated cost of $16 billion.

- This summer we have seen violent weather extremes in parts of the UK.

These environmental changes and severe weather events are already affecting the world insurance industry. Swiss Re, the world's second largest insurer, has estimated that the economic costs of global warming could double to $150 billion each year in the next 10 years, hitting insurers with $30-40 billion in claims.

By the middle of this century, temperatures could have risen enough to trigger irreversible melting of the Greenland ice-cap - eventually increasing sea levels by around seven metres.

There is good evidence that last year's European heat wave was influenced by global warming. It resulted in 26,000 premature deaths and cost $13.5 billion.

It is calculated that such a summer is a one in about 800 year event. On the latest modelling climate change means that as soon as the 2040s at least one year in two is likely to be even warmer than 2003.

That is the evidence. There is one overriding positive: through the science we are aware of the problem and, with the necessary political and collective will, have the ability to address it effectively.

The public, in my view, do understand this. The news of severe weather abroad is an almost weekly occurrence. A recent opinion survey by Greenpeace showed that 78% of people are concerned about climate change.

But people are confused about what they can do. It is individuals as well as Governments and corporations who can make a real difference. The environmental impacts from business are themselves driven by the choices we make each day.

To make serious headway towards smarter lifestyles, we need to start with clear and consistent policy and messages, championed both by government and by those outside government. Telling people what they can do that would make a difference.

Tony.

[SamuiBond]

Tony, heck of a good thing to have you here. Thailand could use a figure like you

Seriously, truth is that (at least) anyone with children should seriously think how to effect their own government in order them to take some action. If you're a developer you shouldn't be building projects around Thailand without considering how to power up your project with sun power. If even in "sunny" England sun electricity pays related home investments back in about 10 years, here it shouldn't take more than 3-4 years before investment pays of and project starts using free, clean electricity.

Edited December 3, 2007 by SamuiBond

[xyborg]

Ahhhhhhhhhh Tony the master of spin!

[plachon]

Ahhhhhhhhhh Tony the master of spin!

Take the name out the post and then try re-reading it.

The only spin is in your head, as this message obviously passed 6" above it.

Good on ya Tony! I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Chloe82]

Tony Blair seems to have fallen into the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc (it happened after, so it was caused by) trap. Do global temperatures react to recent increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses? Quite possibly but temperatures obviously respond to other influences, possibly much more so than atmospheric CO2.

Whatever is finally discovered to be the case, simplistic notions about greenhouse gasses appear to fit the post hoc fallacy far better than they do global temperature. Some of the things briefly discussed in this thread might be drivers of global temperature but hardly in isolation. As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth's orbital eccentricities.

On reflection, having the CET show the 1990s just barely eclipse annual mean temperature recorded in 1733 (a 266 year-old record following a temperature climb of ~3.25 °C in under 4 decades, a rise which would cause pandemonium today), suggests negligible warming over two and one-half centuries, despite massive population increase, urbanization and clearer skies allowing greater solar radiation penetration to ground.

Chloe.

[plachon]

Tony Blair seems to have fallen into the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc (it happened after, so it was caused by) trap. Do global temperatures react to recent increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses? Quite possibly but temperatures obviously respond to other influences, possibly much more so than atmospheric CO2.

Whatever is finally discovered to be the case, simplistic notions about greenhouse gasses appear to fit the post hoc fallacy far better than they do global temperature. Some of the things briefly discussed in this thread might be drivers of global temperature but hardly in isolation. As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth's orbital eccentricities.

On reflection, having the CET show the 1990s just barely eclipse annual mean temperature recorded in 1733 (a 266 year-old record following a temperature climb of ~3.25 °C in under 4 decades, a rise which would cause pandemonium today), suggests negligible warming over two and one-half centuries, despite massive population increase, urbanization and clearer skies allowing greater solar radiation penetration to ground.

Chloe.

What total and utter <deleted> you do spew, dearest Chloe. I know it's difficult for you to deliver a novel retort to the mainstream understanding without resorting to the old cut and paste function or plain copying of others' dicey theories, but at least try and keep it somewhat relevant and meaningful. I mean, the sentence "As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth's orbital eccentricities." is just a classic of banality to the uninitiated that will probably be lifted up as some deep and meaningful utterance by the idiots who think this person Chloe is some sort of clever chick who knows her stuff when it comes to repudating AGW.

And where did you pinch the last para from darling? You pluck these little nuggets of irrelevance from out of the ether which may or may not be true, but mean absolutely zilch when set against the mound of data from across the planet which has been analysed and assimilated to generate the theory of global warming and it's anthropogenic linkages.

[endure]

If you people want this thread to remain open you will be civil to each other. If you cannot be civil, be quiet.

[TonyBlair]

Tony Blair seems to have fallen into the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc (it happened after, so it was caused by) trap. Do global temperatures react to recent increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses? Quite possibly but temperatures obviously respond to other influences, possibly much more so than atmospheric CO2.

Whatever is finally discovered to be the case, simplistic notions about greenhouse gasses appear to fit the post hoc fallacy far better than they do global temperature. Some of the things briefly discussed in this thread might be drivers of global temperature but hardly in isolation. As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth's orbital eccentricities.

On reflection, having the CET show the 1990s just barely eclipse annual mean temperature recorded in 1733 (a 266 year-old record following a temperature climb of ~3.25 °C in under 4 decades, a rise which would cause pandemonium today), suggests negligible warming over two and one-half centuries, despite massive population increase, urbanization and clearer skies allowing greater solar radiation penetration to ground.

Chloe.

If what the science tells us about climate change is correct, then unabated it will result in catastrophic consequences for our world.

The science, almost certainly, is correct.

Even if there are those who still doubt the science in its entirety, surely the balance of risk for action or inaction has changed. If there were even a 50% chance that the scientific evidence I receive is right, the bias in favour of action would be clear. But of course it is far more than 50%.

And in this case, the science is backed up by intuition. It is not axiomatic that pollution causes damage. But it is likely. I am a strong supporter of proceeding through scientific analysis in such issues. But I also, as I think most people do, have a healthy instinct that if we upset the balance of nature, we are in all probability going to suffer a reaction. With world growth, and population as it is, this reaction must increase.

We have been warned. On most issues we ask children to listen to their parents. On climate change, it is parents who should listen to their children.

Now is the time to start.

Tony.

[wilko]

"Big fancy words from such a small minded mean spirited oaf. I wish you follow the last 5 words of your diatribe."

Well I'm flattered if you think my words are "big and fancy" that says a lot more about you than me. Basically as you seem to have missed the point it is an appraisal of the people and arguments presented on this thread and quite well founded an coherent, if somewhat derogatory....you seem to be including yourself - well that's the first sensible thing you've done.

No what it means is your an over educated person embittered by the fact you wasted the education by accomplishing nothing substantial in your life.

You lash out at others who don't cowtow to your way of thinking, who don't bend to your will. But its the same in the real world away from the computer, and it makes the bile crawl up your throat.

Meanwhile I'll still keep plugging away to utilize my resources in an energy efficent lifestyle.

One of my top sales items in recent years has been solar water heaters for pools. I believe totally in renewable resources particularily in my own life, and have for over 40 years.

But I cannot buy the claptrap being pushed down my throat by gov'ts and Goreites such as yourself.

It's all about the money.

What a combination.....Ignorant and paranoid.......the rest I would take as a compliment...it also shows how if you make up things about other posters you must be incapable of formulating a rational argument which is as I have explained why I'm only interested in the standard of idiocy of your ilk, not in debating the undebatable.

[mogoso]

I've stated all along its about money. In Bali at the Climate Change (as the earths been cooling the last three years they can't call it global warming) conference, its been proposed that a climate tax be taken and administered by the UN. The proposal calls for 80 billion dollars be raised annually with 40 billion put in by the US and the rest put in by other affluent countries. The money will then be put into "less fortunate" nations cofers. Income redistribution.

Why would the US who is now argueably second in oil usage have to pay half? The now largest user and the worlds biggest polluter (China) would be exempt. With the demise of the dollar, the strength of the Euro you'd think Europe might pick up a bigger share.

But really it doesn't matter to me as I don't think any money should go to them bandits at the UN

At the start of the 1900's massive air pollution was making people sick in New York City. It was causing diseases carried by water such as cholera, peoples lungs were in terrible shape from the dust created by this pollution. The stench was horrible. The private sector provided the solution, the automobile. The polluter, 200,000 horses that traveled throughout the city.

[mogoso]

"Big fancy words from such a small minded mean spirited oaf. I wish you follow the last 5 words of your diatribe."

Well I'm flattered if you think my words are "big and fancy" that says a lot more about you than me. Basically as you seem to have missed the point it is an appraisal of the people and arguments presented on this thread and quite well founded an coherent, if somewhat derogatory....you seem to be including yourself - well that's the first sensible thing you've done.

No what it means is your an over educated person embittered by the fact you wasted the education by accomplishing nothing substantial in your life.

You lash out at others who don't cowtow to your way of thinking, who don't bend to your will. But its the same in the real world away from the computer, and it makes the bile crawl up your throat.

Meanwhile I'll still keep plugging away to utilize my resources in an energy efficent lifestyle.

One of my top sales items in recent years has been solar water heaters for pools. I believe totally in renewable resources particularily in my own life, and have for over 40 years.

But I cannot buy the claptrap being pushed down my throat by gov'ts and Goreites such as yourself.

It's all about the money.

What a combination.....Ignorant and paranoid.......the rest I would take as a compliment...it also shows how if you make up things about other posters you must be incapable of formulating a rational argument which is as I have explained why I'm only interested in the standard of idiocy of your ilk, not in debating the undebatable.

Now I haven't made up anything. You point to things that are made up such as the hockey stick computer graph as the gospel truth, when it has been debunked by OS Card in his book about it. Now that program was doctored and proved wrong mathematically by Card.

You speak of Al Gore as if he's a god, when its been shown in a British court that 15 of the statements in his book are factually incorrect and others were certainly questionable. Now I don't know much about about the British court system, but I do know its a difficult task to obtain this type of judgement. My friend was sued in British court by a fool named David Irving, a holocost denier, and won her case against him. I've read her book and spoken to her about this, it was a long process and expensive.

So some of your sources are more than suspect.

You discount historical and geologic evidence of past global warmings and coolings as being generic to whats occurring today.

You discard evidence of solar activity as not important.

When faced with giving answers you once again go to name calling.

Just answer this, if its too hot now, what should the correct or ideal temperature be?

[wilko]

If I said snow was white you'd disagree....you haven't read anything I said....or if you did you couldn't understand it......as I've repeatedly said I'll not be drawn into such a fatuous argument when it involves the "brainless and unhinged" such as yourself.

However I'm always amused (it's a masochist thing) to read/listen to the rantings of such amoeba-related mono-cellular efforts at thought processes and on top of that I've had the sadistic pleasure getting you to reply with some more your drivel....get some therapy!

My God! What a crashing bore you are and now it's there for all to see!

Edited December 4, 2007 by wilko

[HS Mauberley]

Tony Blair seems to have fallen into the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc (it happened after, so it was caused by) trap. Do global temperatures react to recent increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses? Quite possibly but temperatures obviously respond to other influences, possibly much more so than atmospheric CO2.

Whatever is finally discovered to be the case, simplistic notions about greenhouse gasses appear to fit the post hoc fallacy far better than they do global temperature. Some of the things briefly discussed in this thread might be drivers of global temperature but hardly in isolation. As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth's orbital eccentricities.

On reflection, having the CET show the 1990s just barely eclipse annual mean temperature recorded in 1733 (a 266 year-old record following a temperature climb of ~3.25 °C in under 4 decades, a rise which would cause pandemonium today), suggests negligible warming over two and one-half centuries, despite massive population increase, urbanization and clearer skies allowing greater solar radiation penetration to ground.

Chloe.

What total and utter <deleted> you do spew, dearest Chloe. I know it's difficult for you to deliver a novel retort to the mainstream understanding without resorting to the old cut and paste function or plain copying of others' dicey theories, but at least try and keep it somewhat relevant and meaningful. I mean, the sentence "As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth's orbital eccentricities." is just a classic of banality to the uninitiated that will probably be lifted up as some deep and meaningful utterance by the idiots who think this person Chloe is some sort of clever chick who knows her stuff when it comes to repudating AGW.

And where did you pinch the last para from darling? You pluck these little nuggets of irrelevance from out of the ether which may or may not be true, but mean absolutely zilch when set against the mound of data from across the planet which has been analysed and assimilated to generate the theory of global warming and it's anthropogenic linkages.

Looks like it's come verbatim from http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Blair.html

***flame removed***Anyway, I thought pumping all this CO2 into the atmosphere was just the best thing ever. Tell us again how the planet's biomass is going to double in the next 50 years. I loved that one.

[xyborg]

<br />

Tony Blair seems to have fallen into the old post hoc, ergo propter hoc (it happened after, so it was caused by) trap. Do global temperatures react to recent increases in atmospheric greenhouse gasses? Quite possibly but temperatures obviously respond to other influences, possibly much more so than atmospheric CO2.<br /><br />Whatever is finally discovered to be the case, simplistic notions about greenhouse gasses appear to fit the post hoc fallacy far better than they do global temperature. Some of the things briefly discussed in this thread might be drivers of global temperature but hardly in isolation. As the source of global warmth, the sun, and its various phases, looks a likely culprit as a primary driver of global climate, as do the Earth's orbital eccentricities. <br /><br />On reflection, having the CET show the 1990s just barely eclipse annual mean temperature recorded in 1733 (a 266 year-old record following a temperature climb of ~3.25 °C in under 4 decades, a rise which would cause pandemonium today), suggests negligible warming over two and one-half centuries, despite massive population increase, urbanization and clearer skies allowing greater solar radiation penetration to ground. <br /><br />Chloe.

<br /><br /><br />If what the science tells us about climate change is correct, then unabated it will result in catastrophic consequences for our world.<br /><br />The science, almost certainly, is correct.<br /><br />Even if there are those who still doubt the science in its entirety, surely the balance of risk for action or inaction has changed. If there were even a 50% chance that the scientific evidence I receive is right, the bias in favour of action would be clear. But of course it is far more than 50%.<br /><br />And in this case, the science is backed up by intuition. It is not axiomatic that pollution causes damage. But it is likely. I am a strong supporter of proceeding through scientific analysis in such issues. But I also, as I think most people do, have a healthy instinct that if we upset the balance of nature, we are in all probability going to suffer a reaction. With world growth, and population as it is, this reaction must increase.<br /><br />We have been warned. On most issues we ask children to listen to their parents. On climate change, it is parents who should listen to their children.<br /><br />Now is the time to start.<br /><br />Tony.<br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

And remember when Tony says all this he believes in God too though I dont see his scientific report on this?? I do hope the believers are getting into a nice lather gnashing of teeth etc

[JetsetBkk]

Thankyou HS! What petty-minded, shameless plagiarists some of these doubters are! Word for word; you'd think she'd have the gnauss to at least try and change a few words here and there to attempt to claim it her own, but this lass can come up with nothing original whatsoever. And to think she's probably being paid to spout this nonsense!

And where do you think the forum troll called TonyBlair gets his material from?

A "shameless plagiarist" "you'd think she'd have the gnauss" - ("gnauss"?? do you mean "nous "?) - etc, etc, could just as easily be applied to our troll, or do you think this troll is the real Tony Blair?

Here are just two of the links to where he shamelessly cut and pasted the REAL Tony Blair's crap from. I couldn't be bothered to find any more:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=119&issue=107

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page6333.asp

[mogoso]

If I said snow was white you'd disagree....you haven't read anything I said....or if you did you couldn't understand it......as I've repeatedly said I'll not be drawn into such a fatuous argument when it involves the "brainless and unhinged" such as yourself.

However I'm always amused (it's a masochist thing) to read/listen to the rantings of such amoeba-related mono-cellular efforts at thought processes and on top of that I've had the sadistic pleasure getting you to reply with some more your drivel....get some therapy!

My God! What a crashing bore you are and now it's there for all to see!

I see your usual style of debate is on full bore, throw insults and slurs to detract from the issue.

A quote from an article by Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris

"Science advancesThrough hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of 'falsability' Trying to prove hypotheses is what science is all about. Yet the hypotheses than human addition of CO2 would lead to significant enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences said" the consenses was reached before the science had even begun. Adherents to the hypotheses began to defend the increasingly indefensible by lauching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten the scientific opponents into silence."

Once again I submit the question, if the global warming has made the earth too hot, what is or should be the correct or ideal temperature? Surely all those scientists that you favor must have an answer to that. After all you follow them blindly, but be careful chicken little the shy might be falling.

I await your usual diatribe of insults and slurs instead of an answer.

One of my favorite books on the subject was written before the global warming hysteria. It by a French author Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. Published in 1967, translated in 1971. "Times of Feast, Times of Famine exams the ups and downs of climate utilizing among other things, the records from vineyards and historical accounts. But it seems vineyards are marvelous keepers of data, from crop yields and how that particular vintage turns out to wheter the season was dry rainy hot or cool. Theres no agenda in the book pro or con climate change, only that it occurs.

[wilko]

If I said snow was white you'd disagree....you haven't read anything I said....or if you did you couldn't understand it......as I've repeatedly said I'll not be drawn into such a fatuous argument when it involves the "brainless and unhinged" such as yourself.

However I'm always amused (it's a masochist thing) to read/listen to the rantings of such amoeba-related mono-cellular efforts at thought processes and on top of that I've had the sadistic pleasure getting you to reply with some more your drivel....get some therapy!

My God! What a crashing bore you are and now it's there for all to see!

I see your usual style of debate is on full bore, throw insults and slurs to detract from the issue.

A quote from an article by Dr. Timothy Ball and Tom Harris

"Science advancesThrough hypotheses based on a set of assumptions. Other scientists challenge and test those assumptions in what philosopher Karl Popper called the practice of 'falsability' Trying to prove hypotheses is what science is all about. Yet the hypotheses than human addition of CO2 would lead to significant enhanced greenhouse warming was quickly accepted without this normal challenge. As Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology, Atmosphere, and Planetary Sciences said" the consenses was reached before the science had even begun. Adherents to the hypotheses began to defend the increasingly indefensible by lauching personal attacks, essentially trying to frighten the scientific opponents into silence."

Once again I submit the question, if the global warming has made the earth too hot, what is or should be the correct or ideal temperature? Surely all those scientists that you favor must have an answer to that. After all you follow them blindly, but be careful chicken little the shy might be falling.

I await your usual diatribe of insults and slurs instead of an answer.

One of my favorite books on the subject was written before the global warming hysteria. It by a French author Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie. Published in 1967, translated in 1971. "Times of Feast, Times of Famine exams the ups and downs of climate utilizing among other things, the records from vineyards and historical accounts. But it seems vineyards are marvelous keepers of data, from crop yields and how that particular vintage turns out to wheter the season was dry rainy hot or cool. Theres no agenda in the book pro or con climate change, only that it occurs.

It's quite wonderful....you really don't get the point do you?

It's YOU that I find so fascinating - not the debate - how on earth did you work out how to operate a computer? walk and talk at the same time? get house-trained?

If I wanted to discuss global warming or climate change do you seriously think I would even entertain the idea of doing it with something with the abysmally inadequate abilities of yourself - this thread is like the insect house at Regents zoo...you go to look at the creepy crawlies and shudder...this is a web site about all things pertaining to Thailand and the weird and wonderful wildlife therein of which you, sir, have got to be one of the weirdest - with the possible exception of the copy & paste perpetrator of sexual inexactitudes - Chloe - I just hope your cage is firmly locked!

Edited December 5, 2007 by wilko

[smeagle]

heres the real reason for global warming

[OlRedEyes]

I see the discussion of this topic is down to the usual standard, as expected. What a waste of energy.

Edited December 5, 2007 by OlRedEyes

[plachon]

Thankyou HS! What petty-minded, shameless plagiarists some of these doubters are! Word for word; you'd think she'd have the gnauss to at least try and change a few words here and there to attempt to claim it her own, but this lass can come up with nothing original whatsoever. And to think she's probably being paid to spout this nonsense!

And where do you think the forum troll called TonyBlair gets his material from?

A "shameless plagiarist" "you'd think she'd have the gnauss" - ("gnauss"?? do you mean "nous "?) - etc, etc, could just as easily be applied to our troll, or do you think this troll is the real Tony Blair?

Here are just two of the links to where he shamelessly cut and pasted the REAL Tony Blair's crap from. I couldn't be bothered to find any more:

http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=119&issue=107

http://www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page6333.asp

Oh, you gnostic gnu! Your gnomic utterances from atop the gnarled gneiss have obliged me to to gnaw the gnocchi and gnash my gnashers when it comes to the correct spelling of "gnauss". If only I'd had the nous of the deniers!

And of course it's the real Tony B Liar. Have you no faith in the man?

[Naam]

here are few ways I think can help us to prevent it.

1.green vegetation

2.avoid the use of fossile fuel

3.for energy we must rely on natural sources rather than artificial one &should try to utilise solar and wind energy as much as we can .

you don't say!

[SamuiBond]

Once again I submit the question, if the global warming has made the earth too hot, what is or should be the correct or ideal temperature?

I think Samui has the correct and ideal one:)

Seriously, global warming isn't about betting who is right or who is wrong! It is plain stupid idea to bet on future generations by being ignorant.