I think the above posts finally show how little some posters understand about the extent and range of effects on gobal warming.

How?

QED.

I think your remarks betray a lack of reasoned argument.

The car must be the most stupid invention ever.

Most sit there before your door 23h/24h, rotting away, what a waist of our resources.

And you buy a new one every 4 year isn't?

The car must be the most stupid invention ever.

Most sit there before your door 23h/24h, rotting away, what a waist of our resources.

And you buy a new one every 4 year isn't?

It's not on this list, perhaps it is number 31?

http://thewondrous.com/30-stupidest-inventions-ever/

The car must be the most stupid invention ever.

Most sit there before your door 23h/24h, rotting away, what a waist of our resources.

And you buy a new one every 4 year isn't?

My car is 18 years old.

I think the above posts finally show how little some posters understand about the extent and range of effects on gobal warming.

How?

QED.

I think your remarks betray a lack of reasoned argument.

Again - QED!

Again - QED!

Your Quoted Evidence Disproved.......... Again.

I think we have had enough with QED and replies to it.

Et tu, Brutus?

Off-topic post removed.

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

Oh come on, there's no shortage of explanatory materials available on the web. Why not spend five or ten minutes reading about it?

Whether people believe in human induced climate change or not is irrelevant. Basic risk management (common sense) demands action. If its real the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

Whether people believe in human induced climate change or not is irrelevant. Basic risk management (common sense) demands action. If its real the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

Unfortunately trying to control man made CO2 will be catastrophic.

So basic risk management would say, don't even try.

The only reasonable way forward for all would be nuclear power.

Something the environmentalists hate even more than CO2.

I would really, really like to see a 'greeny' advocating nuclear power as a way of letting the world control CO2 emissions.

Whether people believe in human induced climate change or not is irrelevant. Basic risk management (common sense) demands action. If its real the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

Unfortunately trying to control man made CO2 will be catastrophic.

So basic risk management would say, don't even try.

Such as?

Whether people believe in human induced climate change or not is irrelevant. Basic risk management (common sense) demands action. If its real the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

Unfortunately trying to control man made CO2 will be catastrophic.

So basic risk management would say, don't even try.

Such as?

How are you going to control Chinese, Indian and Russian CO2 emissions ...... war?

They aren't going to let themselves be oppressed by the west any other way.

So let them get on with it and go it alone, impossible, the increased energy bills would destroy whatever functioning economy the west still had, even if it made any net difference to the world emissions.

Could it be that man-made CO₂ emissions are slowing down the onset of the next ice age?

I really just cannot see how a trace amount of CO2 can have any effect at all on global temperatures.

Oh come on, there's no shortage of explanatory materials available on the web. Why not spend five or ten minutes reading about it?

Whether people believe in human induced climate change or not is irrelevant. Basic risk management (common sense) demands action. If its real the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

I've spent significant time reading about it. There are scientific treatese explaining the quauntum actions of CO2 molecules exchanging photons between them and other scientific papers explaining how this is more or less a zero sum game and does not cause enough warming to be significant. As with most things there are reasoned arguments for and against. For my money one thing is for sure, the science is far from settled.

As for basic risk management demanding action, we are on the same page. I suspect however that we would disagree on just what the most pressing risks are. 1 billion dollars per day is being spent on carbon reduction in the west. I would submit that you could triple that and still not make a differance. With out China and India onboard we are pi$$ing into the proverbal wind.

The following excerpt is taken from an interview with Dr. Alex Rogers, Scientific Director of the International Programme on the State of the Ocean:

The change we’re seeing at the moment is taking place extremely rapidly… We’re seeing levels of pH [a measure of acidity] in the ocean that probably haven’t been experienced for 55 million years… I find it very difficult to tell people what a scary situation we’re in at the moment. The oceans are changing in a huge way, and I am particularly worried for my grandchildren. The changes we thought would happen in the future… We’re actually seeing them now.²

http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/10/the-grim-reaper-haunts-the-ocean/

Whether people believe in human induced climate change or not is irrelevant. Basic risk management (common sense) demands action. If its real the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic.

By the same logic, you could equally say: "Whether people believe in Martians preparing to invade Earth or not is irrelevant. Basic risk management (common sense) demands action. If its real the consequences of doing nothing will be catastrophic."

Basic risk management requires you to consider: the probability that the damaging event will happen; the consequences if it does happen; and the price you have to pay to prevent it happening.

So, we can calculate the chance of our house burning down; the cost if it does; and the price of the insurance which can protect us. Then, and only then, we can decide whether to insure, or whether the money would be better spent on something else.

These calculations have been done numerous times with regard to climate change.

The latest research suggests that global warming currently benefits humanity and will continue to benefit humanity until about 2080 (better crops, principally).

What happens after 2080 is hard to predict; scientists have failed to predict climate on decadal scales, let alone in 70 years' time. Most studies have concluded that it is around 30-50 times cheaper to adapt to climate change impacts if and when they happen than to try and prevent it now.

Meanwhile, ignoring these facts, UN-driven initiatives are currently hoovering up almost $1 billion per day on climate activities.

From: The Global Landscape of Climate Finance 2013 from the Climate Policy Initiative

"Landscape 2013 finds that global climate finance flows have plateaued at USD 359 billion, or around USD 1 billion per day."

That's a billion a day of taxpayer money, being spent to combat something which currently benefits humanity, because of some completely unknown possible negative consequence which may kick in 70 years from now.

Sheer insanity, of course, but that's the Left/Green way.

Haha to Rick Bradford's comic relief. Evidence that martians will be swooping down and invading the planet is NOT remotely comparable to evidence of man made damage to planet including pollution and smog so bad an entire city in Harbin China was shut down, 1.2 million premature deaths last year in China caused by pollution, rising global temps, increased green house gases, increased acidity in world's oceans caused by CO2 emissions, destruction of coral reefs around the globe and dead spots in the oceans. I would say until the Alien crafts are hovering over the worlds major cities ala "Independence Day," the two scenarios are not comparable or analogous.

Haha to Rick Bradford's comic relief. Evidence that martians will be swooping down and invading the planet is NOT remotely comparable to evidence of man made damage to planet including pollution and smog so bad an entire city in Harbin China was shut down, 1.2 million premature deaths last year in China caused by pollution, rising global temps, increased green house gases, increased acidity in world's oceans caused by CO2 emissions, destruction of coral reefs around the globe and dead spots in the oceans. I would say until the Alien crafts are hovering over the worlds major cities ala "Independence Day," the two scenarios are not comparable or analogous.

No matter what you or anyone in the west wants, you can't change what is happening in China.

Until you can change China (and India), no point in the rest of the world making any effort at all.

2011 emissions

China 10MT (x2 since 2007)

USA 5MT (-10% since 2007)

India 2MT

Russia 2MT

Haha to Rick Bradford's comic relief. Evidence that martians will be swooping down and invading the planet is NOT remotely comparable to evidence of man made damage to planet including pollution and smog so bad an entire city in Harbin China was shut down, 1.2 million premature deaths last year in China caused by pollution, rising global temps, increased green house gases, increased acidity in world's oceans caused by CO2 emissions, destruction of coral reefs around the globe and dead spots in the oceans. I would say until the Alien crafts are hovering over the worlds major cities ala "Independence Day," the two scenarios are not comparable or analogous.

No matter what you or anyone in the west wants, you can't change what is happening in China.

Until you can change China (and India), no point in the rest of the world making any effort at all.

2011 emissions

China 10MT (x2 since 2007)

USA 5MT

India 2MT

Russia 2MT

No point in anyone doing anything. Sad, pathetic outlook of an old guy probably on his way out with little care as to what happens after he is gone.

the two scenarios are not comparable or analogous.

Excuse me, they are directly comparable, but not similar.

In the case of my Martians, we have concluded that the likelihood of any sort of invasion from beings on Mars is so vanishingly small that we do not need to spend money protecting ourselves against it.

In the case of asteroids hitting the earth, we have concluded that the chance is very slight, but the damage would be massive, and so we spend money on monitoring earth-bound objects.

In the case of agricultural monoculture, we have concluded that the chance of crops all being wiped out at the same time is small, but potentially quite damaging, so we spend money (creating seed banks) to protect against it.

In the case of climate change, we (as in the scientists studying this) have concluded that the chance of damage is negligible for the next 70 years and not quantifiable after that. Yet we squander a billion dollars a day on protecting ourselves against it.

I can't express it any more simply than that, sorry.

the two scenarios are not comparable or analogous.

Excuse me, they are directly comparable, but not similar.

In the case of my Martians, we have concluded that the likelihood of any sort of invasion from beings on Mars is so vanishingly small that we do not need to spend money protecting ourselves against it.

In the case of asteroids hitting the earth, we have concluded that the chance is very slight, but the damage would be massive, and so we spend money on monitoring earth-bound objects.

In the case of agricultural monoculture, we have concluded that the chance of crops all being wiped out at the same time is small, but potentially quite damaging, so we spend money (creating seed banks) to protect against it.

In the case of climate change, we (as in the scientists studying this) have concluded that the chance of damage is negligible for the next 70 years and not quantifiable after that. Yet we squander a billion dollars a day on protecting ourselves against it.

I can't express it any more simply than that, sorry.

lovely and simple but the last one is incorrect in fact they are all fallacious - however it suits you, (I see a trend) so why not use it....who cares about reality?

the two scenarios are not comparable or analogous.

Excuse me, they are directly comparable, but not similar.

In the case of my Martians, we have concluded that the likelihood of any sort of invasion from beings on Mars is so vanishingly small that we do not need to spend money protecting ourselves against it.

In the case of asteroids hitting the earth, we have concluded that the chance is very slight, but the damage would be massive, and so we spend money on monitoring earth-bound objects.

In the case of agricultural monoculture, we have concluded that the chance of crops all being wiped out at the same time is small, but potentially quite damaging, so we spend money (creating seed banks) to protect against it.

In the case of climate change, we (as in the scientists studying this) have concluded that the chance of damage is negligible for the next 70 years and not quantifiable after that. Yet we squander a billion dollars a day on protecting ourselves against it.

I can't express it any more simply than that, sorry.

lovely and simple but the last one is incorrect in fact they are all fallacious - however it suits you, (I see a trend) so why not use it....who cares about reality?

Yes, there is a trend, and it is foisted on the gullible,

Welcome to the expensive seats.

What? Another denialist thread?

What? Another denialist thread?

Good, easy to understand, common sense short video dealing with ridiculous postures.

In the case of agricultural monoculture, we have concluded that the chance of crops all being wiped out at the same time is small, but potentially quite damaging, so we spend money (creating seed banks) to protect against it.

In the case of climate change, we (as in the scientists studying this) have concluded that the chance of damage is negligible for the next 70 years and not quantifiable after that. Yet we squander a billion dollars a day on protecting ourselves against it.

I can't express it any more simply than that, sorry.

"....the chance of crops all being wiped out at the same time is small,...."

It's not a black and white thing. Who claims ALL crops? Already, some crops are being affected by climate fluxes, and it's likely there will be more such effects, and probably more severe for some crops. But, to prove GW or CC is happening, doesn't require affects on ALL things.

Example: To claim that crime numbers are up in Chicago, doesn't have to mean that every Chicagoan is getting robbed.

One of my personal observation, regarding plants in the region I reside, in northernmost Thailand, is weeds are growing twice as fast as ten to twenty years ago. I admit it's unscientific, as I haven't done measurements. I attribute it to increased CO2. I could be wrong, but that's what I've observed in recent years, particularly in the course of spending hundreds of dollars/year for weed cutting on 4 rural properties.

Haha to Rick Bradford's comic relief. Evidence that martians will be swooping down and invading the planet is NOT remotely comparable to evidence of man made damage to planet including pollution and smog so bad an entire city in Harbin China was shut down, 1.2 million premature deaths last year in China caused by pollution, rising global temps, increased green house gases, increased acidity in world's oceans caused by CO2 emissions, destruction of coral reefs around the globe and dead spots in the oceans. I would say until the Alien crafts are hovering over the worlds major cities ala "Independence Day," the two scenarios are not comparable or analogous.

No matter what you or anyone in the west wants, you can't change what is happening in China.

Until you can change China (and India), no point in the rest of the world making any effort at all.

2011 emissions

China 10MT (x2 since 2007)

USA 5MT

India 2MT

Russia 2MT

No point in anyone doing anything. Sad, pathetic outlook of an old guy probably on his way out with little care as to what happens after he is gone.

Being realistic is not the same as not caring.

Even if everyone in the western world did everything right ( according to the greenies ), a few bush fires and some erupting volcanoes will still upset the carbon cart.

As long as Germany and Japan are insane enough to turn away from nuclear and go carbon, and no other countries other than France are prepared to go the whole hog nuclear, what's the point of even trying to be green?

Certainly, no western government has forgone air travel to exotic places for meaningless conferences, so why should I penalise myself?

As for myself, I have no children to suffer in the future, but it's pretty inexcusable for those that do to take such little and inefective action.

What? Another denialist thread?

Good, easy to understand, common sense short video dealing with ridiculous postures.

Reminded me of a fundamentalist preacher intoning the gospel, making sure none of the faithful consider leaving the flock. For domestic consumption only, as they say.

Getting back to the topic title, the BBC, that bastion of Green alarmism, has taken the unprecedented step of airing the views of a scientist (Professor Mike Lockwood) who believes that the climate is at risk of heading back into a little ice age, based on his analysis of solar activity.

Based on his findings he’s raised the risk of a new Maunder minimum [the Little Ice Age] from less than 10% just a few years ago to 25-30%. And a repeat of the Dalton solar minimum which occurred in the early 1800s, which also had its fair share of cold winters and poor summers, is, according to him, ‘more likely than not’ to happen.

He believes that we are already beginning to see a change in our climate – witness the colder winters and poor summers [in the UK and Europe] of recent years – and that over the next few decades there could be a slide to a new Maunder minimum.

He says that a cooling "could have profound implications for energy policy and our [the UK's] transport infrastructure." Given that this winter, 3 million elderly UK residents will already be at risk from the cold due to sky-high energy prices, he may well have a point.

My only surprise is that the kommissars of political correctness at the BBC let this one slip through the vetting process. No doubt heads will roll.

Thaibeachlover:

I think you pretty much the nail on the head. I think the consensus and common sense belief is that we are f***** things up pretty bad, but no one cares enough to do what really needs to be done to make a difference. I am not giving up air travel anytime soon, at least not before my trips to Vegas and Hawaii between no and end of year . . . So I do suck. Perhaps one day I won't be so selfish and I hope that others won't be either.

Ruckbradford:

Dude, you are just an outlier that will never let go even if you were standing in thick smog frying in 125 degree heat. The issue is not whether CO2 and pollution are causing serious issues and destroying our oceans, the issue is whether mankind cares enough to make any sufficient sacrifices to make an impact. I suppose it is easier for people like you to rationalize their behavior by denying there is a problem.

The issue is not whether CO2 and pollution are causing serious issues and destroying our oceans, the issue is whether mankind cares enough to make any sufficient sacrifices to make an impact.

The issue is actually whether mankind is smart and rational enough to quantify the risks and apply appropriate remedies where necessary, or whether we are going to ruin our collective future by running around full of hysterical and blind emotionalism seeing man-made bogeymen and demons at every turn, and demanding a return to some mythical Eden.

Time was, people who stood around with sandwich boards stating "Repent! The end is nigh!", would be taken away and cared for in private. Now they're running large NGOs and UN organisations, or writing for the legacy media.

Thaibeachlover:

I think you pretty much the nail on the head. I think the consensus and common sense belief is that we are fuc_king things up pretty bad, but no one cares enough to do what really needs to be done to make a difference. I am not giving up air travel anytime soon, at least not before my trips to Vegas and Hawaii between no and end of year . . . So I do suck. Perhaps one day I won't be so selfish and I hope that others won't be either.

Ruckbradford:

Dude, you are just an outlier that will never let go even if you were standing in thick smog frying in 125 degree heat. The issue is not whether CO2 and pollution are causing serious issues and destroying our oceans, the issue is whether mankind cares enough to make any sufficient sacrifices to make an impact. I suppose it is easier for people like you to rationalize their behavior by denying there is a problem.

At one time consensus thought the earth was flat and you could sail off the edge.

Trouble with consensus, is most of it's members are fools.

CHINA!, they ain't playing your game, and nobody else counts.

Guess it's easier for you to just ignore any post that includes the word 'China', because it doesn't suit your agenda.