Global Warming Do You Care?

[A_Traveller]

Since this started with a BBC sourced point, let me add another.

Unravelling the sceptics By Richard Black Environment correspondent, BBC News website

What do "climate sceptics" believe?

You might think that you know the answer, having heard, seen and read numerous counter-blasts aimed at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) over the course of this year, as the three components of its landmark climate assessment were published. Despite having reported on climate change for more than a decade, I realised at the beginning of the year that I was not entirely sure. ... In April 2006, a group of 61 self-styled "accredited experts in climate and related scientific disciplines" wrote an open letter to Canada's newly elected prime minister, Stephen Harper, asking his government to initiate hearings into the scientific foundations of the nation's climate change plan. The letter, complete with a list of signatories, was published in Canada's Financial Post newspaper. ... Fourteen of the group filled in the questionnaire, in varying degrees of detail; another 11 replied without filling it in. Of these, some sent links to articles explaining their position. Some replied with academic papers, for which I am grateful, especially to Doug Hoyt who mailed a number of references that I had not previously seen. Some said this was a worthwhile exercise. Some, in circulated emails, said the opposite, in terms which were sometimes so frank that others of the group apologised on their behalf.

Down to details

So to the results. Ten out of the 14 agreed that the Earth's surface temperature had risen over the last 50 years; three said it had not, with one equivocal response.

Nine agreed that atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide had risen over the last century, with two saying decidedly that levels had not risen. Eight said that human factors were principally driving the rise.

Twelve of the fourteen agreed that in principle, rising greenhouse gas concentrations should increase temperatures.

But eight cited the Sun as the principal factor behind the observed temperature increase.

And nine said the "urban heat island" effect - where progressive urbanisation around weather stations has increased the amount of heat generated locally - had affected the record of historical temperatures.

Eleven believed rising greenhouse gas concentrations would not result in "dangerous" climate change, and 12 said it would be unwise for the global community to restrain production of carbon dioxide and the other relevant gases, with several suggesting that such restraint would bring economic disruption.

One of my more gracious respondents, Arthur Rorsch, suggested that rising CO2 might help "green" the world, with increases in food supply.

There was general disdain for the Kyoto Protocol, with respondents split roughly equally between saying it was the wrong approach to an important issue, and a meaningless exercise because there was no point in trying to curb emissions.

There was general agreement, too, that computer models which try to project the climate of the future are unreliable. Several respondents said the climate system was inherently unpredictable and therefore impossible to model in a computer.

The other questions produced sets of responses which I could not boil down into anything approaching a consensus view.

Article link

Regards

[JetsetBkk]

There are several alternative hypothesis, and a new theory backed by experimental data. Look up Svensmark as well as Shaviv.

There have been rebuttals but many rebuttals of the rebuttals. Most of the attacks by the AGW believers centre on personal attacks, hardly scientific!

Shaviv's webpage

Another good link from a physicist

and another

Ii's interesting that one of those links shows that, historically, "temperature increase" came before the "CO2 increase" - not the other way round. What an inconvenient truth! http://www.sciencebits.com/IceCoreTruth

Even big oil says as much!

Ever heard of "public relations"?

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

Looks like we fixed that one, for sure.

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

Because the sun screen manufacturers have milked that one for all it's worth.

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?

Yes. But once they're hooked, there's no hope for them.

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.

So did Spielberg's "Close Encounter Of The Third Kind".

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.

Well put. I do care about global warming, but don't believe it is or will be as bad as some are saying, and don't believe it is caused by people so much as the 'true believers' think it is. And I can't be bothered to argue any more either - too many "true (Al Gore) believers" out there.

[xyborg]

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

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

Your'e correct................ I dont have any kids.

[xyborg]

<br />

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.

<br />This is one of the most outlandish crazy comments I have ever read!<br />

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

A bit like human's contribution to global warming then eh??

[pointofview]

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.

People do care or should i say would care if this thing was real. You depriving yourself of visiting your grandchildren is dumb dumb dumb - and will make no diference to the power of the sun. India and china and russia, to name but a few are growing massively - not that it matters re. warming. The real problem is envioromental. What makes you believe known liars and criminals????

Edited November 12, 2007 by pointofview

[Spee]

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.

Geez ... the legend of Rip Van Winkle comes to mind ...

Does the Kyoto Protocol ring a bell? It is the single defining case of governments trying to mandate extraction of money from the citizenry to "combat global warming" as if governments are more powerful than mother nature. It is nothing more than deception and arrogance, at the expense of the taxpayer. Then there's carbon footprint taxation, the whole ethanol debacle raising the price of corn so high that people who use it as a basic food source are having trouble making ends meet, and so on. Entire governments have propagandized the whole thing and are complicit in the propaganda for sheer political motives. All one has to do is walk around London for a few days and watch the BBC.

I don't think very many people would dispute that recent climate trends have shown very minor increases in average global temperatures (just as back in the 1920's and 1930's where there were climate trends toward global cooling). But this is where the documentary ends and the work of fiction begins. This is where sound scientific research and unsound scientific research part company. Oh, and as a popular radio pundit likes to say, "If there is talk of scientific consensus, then there is sure to be a total lack of scientific method."

[Trevor]

The Great Global Warming Swindle ...

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites...ndle/index.html (An inconvenient truth for the 'Inventor of the Internet')

Based largely on the earth's orbital eccentricities ...

http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/clisci100k.html

Bottom line is we can do nothing about the current warming trend despite all the BBC-propaganda-warming-hype (sour grapes 'cos Channel 4 beat them to revealing the truth?).

However some good will come of the mania in improved industrial and transport efficiency, less pollution and lower energy bills as we actually do reduce our carbon footprints.

Young 25-yo Chloe actually knows more than the oldies here!

Edited November 12, 2007 by Trevor

[plachon]

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.

So you're not voting Tory, Labour or Green Party and presumably not Liberal Democrat either, as they're more green than the first two, which just leaves.....BNP? UK Independence Party or maybe an even more fringe party perhaps?

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.

The same one that Zac Goldsmith and BP (Beyond Petroleum) speak of. The oil is going to run out sooner rather or later, so why not get ahead of the curve? You're going to have to kick your addiction whether you like it or not. Weren't you listening to Zac on Question Time then, or were you too incensed at the fact that he is a rich kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth and an Eton education to actually listen to what he was saying?

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.

As I suspected all along, this has got less to do with environment so much as a Class War. You've got quite a chip on your shoulder, haven't you mate?

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.

Not quite, a year was sufficient............but it proves my point about your wounded class conciousness being the crux of the matter. And by the way, I think you meant plagiarising Marx, even though I've never read a single tome by the old bearded fellow.

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.

And how exactly is Zac Goldsmith a hypocrite? Can you prove he is more polluting and has a bigger carbon footprint than yourself or Joe Bloggs? Or is it just his accent, educashun and silver spoon you dislike?

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.

Glad to hear it mate. Anything wrong with the local burgers then? It seems a long way to go eat a burger with all that fine Thai food available in Bangkok.

[howtoescape]

An Inconvenient Truth.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1655856/posts

Yet the government still push these mind twisting lies on the children of Britain.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007...ed=networkfront

Edited November 12, 2007 by howtoescape

[plachon]

...

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.

Rupert Murdoch - "liberal media" - I've heard it all now from the global warming sceptics.

Altman.....the voice of reasoned logical analysis.

[howtoescape]

Rupert Murdoch - "liberal media" - I've heard it all now from the global warming sceptics.

Altman.....the voice of reasoned logical analysis.

From Ruperts very own website.

http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html

Still think he doesnt have an agenda?

[madjbs]

Most people certainly don’t have anywhere near the level of knowledge on the subject to say if global warming is real or not. It’s impossible to know for sure. Therefore, it’s easier for some people to call it a hoax so they can then use it as an excuse to carry on living in whatever ways they wish (gas guzzling cars etc...) Ignorance, arrogance and selfishness all seem to come into play here.

[plachon]

Rupert Murdoch - "liberal media" - I've heard it all now from the global warming sceptics.

Altman.....the voice of reasoned logical analysis.

From Ruperts very own website.

http://www.newscorp.com/energy/full_speech.html

Still think he doesnt have an agenda?

Of course he has an agenda..............it's to make money. Lots of it.

And as an astute businessman he's finally clicked that it is not only a feelgood issue going "green", but it also makes good business sense. Thus, he's making sure News Corporation don't miss the boat. Smart guy, but definitely not part of "the liberal media".

[chiang mai]

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".

No, there was talk even in the early 1970's about a hole in the ozone layer although this was not a subject that was terribly popular at the time and most commentators were dismissed as mad scientists.

[dominique355]

Most people certainly don’t have anywhere near the level of knowledge on the subject to say if global warming is real or not. It’s impossible to know for sure. Therefore, it’s easier for some people to call it a hoax so they can then use it as an excuse to carry on living in whatever ways they wish (gas guzzling cars etc...) Ignorance, arrogance and selfishness all seem to come into play here.

The weather and even more the climate is a very complicated and difficult thing to predict. Even the most powerful computers struggle to predict tomorrow's weather to more than 40% accuracy. So how on earth can these scientists predict the weather and the climate 30 or 40 years from now?

In the Seventies the Club of Rome predicted mass starvation, in the Eighties there was the Death of Forrests (Waldsterben), nothing of which actually happened. And now these scientists predict Global Warming and Climate catastrophe? Allow me to be skeptic.

While I have my doubts about the accuracy of the scientist's forecast, I certainly believe that we should drastically reduce the amount of exhaust gases from internal combustion engines. We breath in this stuff!

[JR Texas]

Most people certainly don’t have anywhere near the level of knowledge on the subject to say if global warming is real or not. It’s impossible to know for sure. Therefore, it’s easier for some people to call it a hoax so they can then use it as an excuse to carry on living in whatever ways they wish (gas guzzling cars etc...) Ignorance, arrogance and selfishness all seem to come into play here.

The weather and even more the climate is a very complicated and difficult thing to predict. Even the most powerful computers struggle to predict tomorrow's weather to more than 40% accuracy. So how on earth can these scientists predict the weather and the climate 30 or 40 years from now?

In the Seventies the Club of Rome predicted mass starvation, in the Eighties there was the Death of Forrests (Waldsterben), nothing of which actually happened. And now these scientists predict Global Warming and Climate catastrophe? Allow me to be skeptic.

While I have my doubts about the accuracy of the scientist's forecast, I certainly believe that we should drastically reduce the amount of exhaust gases from internal combustion engines. We breath in this stuff!

It is irresponsible to ignore the dominate position among the scientific community that we are causing a massive and rapid climate change event--primarily as a result of our unrestrained consumerism, itself underpinned by an environmentally unsound energy system and compounded by a huge and growing global population. Future generations will look back on this period and shake their heads in disbelief.

About starvation: Yes, the precise scenario predicted by the Club of Rome and other scientists did not materialized worldwide, but it did materialize in various regions, particularly sub-Saharan Africa. Norman Borlaugh's work on the Green Revolution was the key to growing more food.

Scientists make predictions based on existing technologies, not on future technologies not in existence at the time of the prediction.

About global climate change: The evidence is omnipresent........it is real.

Many people (not scientists) point out that the current warming trend is simply part of a natural cycle. If the current warming event is a natural cycle, the worst thing to do is to magnify it via population growth and an increase in environmentally unsound production/consumption worldwide.

So, natural cycle or not, we must tackle the challenge of global warming now.

[Pepe']

What could possibly be the down side of being more respectful to mother earth?

[mogoso]

There's no point in caring. I care about the life my kid will or will not have, that's all. As is illustrated so aptly in this thread, the human race is not worth caring about, they're too greedy and stupid. Give up the greed and luxury? No way's. Ever. Ignore the problem. Confuse the issue. Whatever.

It's too late anyways. Global warming will not happen in a straight line, it feeds upon itself. The UN report is overly conservative, else it would never have been accepted by so many nations.

Love ya all. Have a good trip

Many of the signers of the UN treatsie have repudiated it, several have written books. Global warming occurs in cycles either solar or terrestrial. The loss of glacier ice in the Alps has uncovered a bronze age mine, still with the mining implements left at site. In Canada the retreating ice has uncovered 7000 year old trees.

Presently the Artic ice cap is at a minimum, while the antartic is at a maximum of known parameters.

After Katrina the global warming crowd warned that more and stronger hurricanes will batter the US. Two years and no hurricane has come calling.

To combat this the global warming crowd has changed its cry from global warming to "climate change" that way whether or not it gets warm or cold they can still blame it on man.

I read chicken little when I was a todler, and kinda live my life not following the crowd, particularily when the crowd is lead by the UN and myrmidons like Al Gore/

[Pepe']

There's no point in caring. I care about the life my kid will or will not have, that's all. As is illustrated so aptly in this thread, the human race is not worth caring about, they're too greedy and stupid. Give up the greed and luxury? No way's. Ever. Ignore the problem. Confuse the issue. Whatever.

It's too late anyways. Global warming will not happen in a straight line, it feeds upon itself. The UN report is overly conservative, else it would never have been accepted by so many nations.

Love ya all. Have a good trip

Many of the signers of the UN treatsie have repudiated it, several have written books. Global warming occurs in cycles either solar or terrestrial. The loss of glacier ice in the Alps has uncovered a bronze age mine, still with the mining implements left at site. In Canada the retreating ice has uncovered 7000 year old trees.

Presently the Artic ice cap is at a minimum, while the antartic is at a maximum of known parameters.

After Katrina the global warming crowd warned that more and stronger hurricanes will batter the US. Two years and no hurricane has come calling.

To combat this the global warming crowd has changed its cry from global warming to "climate change" that way whether or not it gets warm or cold they can still blame it on man.

I read chicken little when I was a todler, and kinda live my life not following the crowd, particularily when the crowd is lead by the UN and myrmidons like Al Gore/

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

So then I gather that is the long version of the opinion that we should not respect and conserve natural resources...

[nakhonsi sean]

Pepe' Posted Today, 2007-11-13 09:16:33

So then I gather that is the long version of the opinion that we should not respect and conserve natural resources... cool.gif

No, what ever side of the AGW argument you are on, the conservation of natural resources is important. This is a mistake that AGW proponents often make when talking about ''sceptics'', they assume we are not environmentally aware. I trained as an ecologist and am very concerned about the environment, I just think the Co2 - temperature link is seriously overstated.

[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!

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.

May sexual proclivities are none of you business.....I feel who and what I want....but i doubt if you understand much about that either......and I'm certainly not engaging in a lame debate with someone who really got stuck in the starting gate.....go and read (you can can't you?) and then come back and tell everyone how sorry you are for being so stupid in public.....

[mogoso]

Pepe' Posted Today, 2007-11-13 09:16:33

So then I gather that is the long version of the opinion that we should not respect and conserve natural resources... cool.gif

No, what ever side of the AGW argument you are on, the conservation of natural resources is important. This is a mistake that AGW proponents often make when talking about ''sceptics'', they assume we are not environmentally aware. I trained as an ecologist and am very concerned about the environment, I just think the Co2 - temperature link is seriously overstated.

Like you I believe in the conservation of earths resources, but many things trouble me. A huge area of land where the zinc is smelted to make the batteries to power the dual fuel vehicles, is a lifeless area in Canada. where is ecofriendliness in that, where is the outcry. (actually there more to this story, but I'm too lazy to type it)

I'm no math major or scientist, but trying to find out how much CO2 is spewed into the atmosphere by my auto, I read that using 100 gallons of gas will put 2000 lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere. Here is where I get math challenged. Gas weighs about the same or maybe a little less than water, hence 100 gallons is equal roughly 700 lbs, so how does the total byproduct of combustion (assume its all CO2, which I don't believe is true) gain roughly 3 times the weight of gas, post combustion. A basic tenet of science is matter cannot be created or destoyed, only changed. Can the change cause it to gain weight? can I turn lead into gold? wait a minute thats alchemy

Whichs brings me to carbonated drink. Can beer and colas be good for CO2 footprint? How much weight do they gain going through our bodies? Then being belched and pooted out. Are we drinking our way to extinction? Many gallons are used throughout the world daily?, perhaps more than gallons of petrol.

Which takes me to green fuels, a good idea for a small scale, but ecologically I think it'll prove to be a boondoggle.

A frenchman has built a wonderful new vechicle that runs on compressed air. Doesn't take much energy to fill the tanks and you can always carry a small compressor with you. They'll be in India soon, can't wait to see how they preform.

[Captain Chaos]

I care that weather patterns in the world are changing and I wish to understand fully what is causing that to happen. The media tells me it is caused by Global Warming and if that is true, I care deeply.

I agree with this ... I care but I am not convinced that we really know what is going on. There is a distinct media frenzy about this subject and the non-stop constant lecturing by - in particular - the BBC is causing me to become irritated and somewhat blase about it.

CC

[nakhonsi sean]

mogoso Posted Today, 2007-11-13 12:47:25

Like you I believe in the conservation of earths resources, but many things trouble me. A huge area of land where the zinc is smelted to make the batteries to power the dual fuel vehicles, is a lifeless area in Canada. where is ecofriendliness in that, where is the outcry. (actually there more to this story, but I'm too lazy to type it)

There are I believe many more pressing problems in the world today that could be tackled with the money earmarked for combating Co2 and climate change. The cost of the Kyoto Protocol is staggering! Some sources have put the cost as high as half a trillion dollars a year, though I suspect this is a bit over the top. That is going to make a very serious dent in the world economy for little benefit. Any plan to reduce Co2 outputs that would have a reasonable effect, if you believe it has a serious effect, are going to be far more severe than the Kyoto Protocol. This then would have a major impact on the development of China and India. Are they really going to go along with these plans? The money, I suspect, would be far better spent adapting to a warmer world and helping poor nations to develop.

Captain Chaos Posted Today, 2007-11-13 13:06:00

I agree with this ... I care but I am not convinced that we really know what is going on. There is a distinct media frenzy about this subject and the non-stop constant lecturing by - in particular - the BBC is causing me to become irritated and somewhat blase about it.

The BBC is, like most of the mass media, taking a very one-sided and alarmist stance. They happily report rebuttals of the opposing science but do not report the rebuttals of the rebuttals even though some have been devastating to the AGW cause. I used to have great respect for the BBC but now I see how they one-sidedly treat a topic in which I am well versed I am quickly losing that respect.

Edited November 13, 2007 by nakhonsi sean

[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.

May sexual proclivities are none of you business.....I feel who and what I want....but i doubt if you understand much about that either......and I'm certainly not engaging in a lame debate with someone who really got stuck in the starting gate.....go and read (you can can't you?) and then come back and tell everyone how sorry you are for being so stupid in public.....

As a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, I don’t have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don’t appear.

It's a shame, but an inevitable result of an un-even education system, that some people don't have the ability to respect others opinions, or for that matter are unable to counter an opinion and instead go in to some (alcohol fuled?) rant.

Wilko, don't just take as fact, the words of politicized scientists who present a one-sided opinion specificaly taylor made for policymakers where all the “but’s” are removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people in the Western world and clearly here on this forum.

I'm by no means or way saying that no attention needs to be paid to the enviornment and man's contribution to bad effects. However this attention must be based on reason and reality, not on promoted campaigns designed to enrich certain proponents and impose their world views on a population which would otherwise reject them.

There is no reason to beleive in or to participate in a campaign such as is being conducted which promotes global warming as an agenda. Enviornmental considerations should take place separate from the socialist religion.

As for your comment about getting stuck at the starting gate, who's gate is it? If it's the starting gate to being brain washed by some U.N. panel and other political bodies with a bunch of other non-scientific institutions thrown in for good measure, then thanks, i think i will just stay there.

[wilko]

Opinions are only respected if they have a basis in logical thought or deduction...nothing you have contributed to this web site would lead me to believe that you deserve anything but derision.

"There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures." - you really seem to be backing off from this a little

"A science orientated person" - a WHAT??

Edited November 13, 2007 by wilko

[DirkGently]

To the people that DON'T CARE. I agree that climate change has not been proven and that change will continue due to forces of nature, but pollution has a very negative impact on our lives. Yours too!

The filth in the air that comes from burning plastic, dirty beaches, contaminated drinking water etc are really down to us. I know buying a cotton bag won't save dolphins or whatever, but it can't hurt.

[nakhonsi sean]

Chloe82 Posted Today, 2007-11-13 14:49:37

Wilko, don't just take as fact, the words of politicized scientists who present a one-sided opinion specificaly taylor made for policymakers where all the “but’s” are removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses. This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people in the Western world and clearly here on this forum.

The media, politicians, Royal Society etc., are basically regurgitating the IPCC's mantra. This is as much a political organisation as scientific. All material emanating from them must first be passed through a political process and approved by member governments, this is quit clear if you take the time to read their 4AR report, the latest. (Very tedious, It took me 2 weeks to get through the roughly 1000 pages!)

I had been waiting for the publication and was somewhat miffed that the first released the SPM (Summary for Policy Makers) first with a statement that the full scientific report would follow three months later. The reason for the delay, they stated, was to ''facilitate editing to suit the summary''!! This is a scientific outrage!

However, quite understandable when one reads the IPCC rules for publishing

''Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after the acceptance by the Working Group or the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistancy with the Summary for Policy Makers or the Overview chapter.''

(IPCC -PROCEDURE FOR THE PREPARATION, REVIEW, ACCEPTANCE, ADOPTION, APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION OF IPCC REPORTS)

This is one reason why I strongly urge people to ignore the mass media, IPCC, Royal Society etc. and read the actual research papers pertaining to global warming/climate change.

As Chloe 82 says, one does not have to be a climate scientist to read the scientific papers, one just has to spend a lot of time and energy to do so!

[jumnien]

Due to idiots like George Bush running the world, oil is at an all-time high with no relief in sight creating a perfect storm for alternative fuels to become economically feasible for the first time. Let's just hope the people of the world keep electing idiots as their leaders who inadvertently create the windows of opportunity for the resolution of serious problems.

[nakhonsi sean]

DirkGently Posted Today, 2007-11-13 15:16:43

To the people that DON'T CARE. I agree that climate change has not been proven and that change will continue due to forces of nature, but pollution has a very negative impact on our lives. Yours too!

The filth in the air that comes from burning plastic, dirty beaches, contaminated drinking water etc are really down to us. I know buying a cotton bag won't save dolphins or whatever, but it can't hurt.

Pollution is another topic. The AGW hypothesis is mainly concerned with Co2 which is not a pollutant. Of course pollution must be tackled as it is doing immense damage to the planet and peoples health but this is another issue often confused with AGW.