I was referring to a much longer time scale than decades - geological time. Hence my caveat about rate of change being the issue and not "climate change" as such. So no - no proof of climate change over period of decades prior to mankind. I can offer up the KT extinction but that is hardly undisputed.
EDIT - Beat me to it 
I suggest that you read the IPCC reports. As I recall, they're very much opposed to global warming. 
very good! have a point. 
Ti29er: forgive me, did you ever get the chance to further explain your opening post?
what's the stuff you're after? - 'here's why climate change is nonsense' - or - 'here's why it's all a bit boring really'
?
i read a paper about a year ago that intentionally ignored any human influences on climate, and set out to investigate natural causes of climate change and evaluate the influence they impose, i'll try and dig it out.
(1 big volcano = Xdegrees, orbital variation = Ydegrees, el nino etc. = Zdegrees, etc.)
I was referring to a much longer time scale than decades - geological time. Hence my caveat about rate of change being the issue and not "climate change" as such.
Yes, as stated there have been numerous times in the history of our planet where we have seen high levels of CO2 accompanied by global temperature rises. The question is whether the additional CO2 being pumped into the environment is having an additional effect.
I had a look on Amazon and found this. I'm guessing it's the sort of objective, unbiased analysis you're looking for. I don't know whether the author's credentials in the area are as impressive as Clarkson's, but then I suffered from the sort of 'poor quality schooling' that's tragically all too common outside the centre of academic excellence that is Whatford (sic.)
The question is whether the additional CO2 being pumped into the environment is having an additional effect.
* The currentlevels of C02 are outside the levels shown in your graph [380 ppm]as BP is actually 1950, The last increase of C02 ppm in this order[since 1950] took 5000 years this has taken 60 years leaving us with at least an 800,000 year high currently.
I have extended the graph up to the present date with current levels of C02 and temperature as I am sure you would not want to be accused of using selective data. Given this could you explain why you are uncertain about what is/will happen?
Ti29er - just wondering what counts as a good book? Seriously, working your way along Waterstones' shelves, how would you decide upon a credible source? I'm guessing Gillian McKeith wouldn't suffice, even though she's got a PhD dontyouknow, but how do you decide between Stanley Feldman and Stanley Kubrick and Henry Morton Stanley when you want to know about titanium alloys?
Climate change is happening science has shown that and it is linked to so called greenhouse gases. Granted you could correlate it with lots of things but greenhouse type gases seems like a fair bet, but you could also pick global population.
The reason they don't called it global warming anymore is simple, people assume therefore that the weather will get hotter, not true. For the UK chances its just as likely that we end up encased in ice, becuase the gulf stream may stop, it has already slowed.
I am sure you would not want to be accused of using selective data.
As proven before you can use selective data to prove anything you want to. What makes you think that selectively looking at the last 400 years is better than the last 500,000? In the grand schemes of this planet 400 years is a blink of the eye.
Given this could you explain why you are uncertain about what is/will happen?
I am not certain about anything. I didn't say that. Just like you can not be certain about what could/couldn't happen.
Anyway, i don't think we should get into the debate again, i think after several hundred responses last time we agreed to disagree.
To answer the original question. "The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science" looks worth a read if you are one of those who feel that evidence-based policy-making is better than policy-based evidence-making.
I suggest that all the global warming hype risks ignoring the larger problem: how to conserve fossil fuels, and how to provide heat, light and power to homes and businesses once the fossil fuels run out. An excellent book on this subject is "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air". The author does seem to be a global warming believer, but he only spends one chapter on it. All energy supply options are considered, from wind to nuclear, in various combinations, along with strategies for reducing energy use where it's practical to do so. Not as dry as it sounds.
I suggest that all the global warming hype risks ignoring the larger problem: how to conserve fossil fuels, and how to provide heat, light and power to homes and businesses once the fossil fuels run out.
Agreed - although the only answer that will work is fewer people...
not sure hype is the correct word to describe global warming but certainly there are a number of large issues about to befall mankind ...all of which were in our power to avoid had we made better choices.
An excellent book on this subject is "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air". The author does seem to be a global warming believer, but he only spends one chapter on it.
Well, he is a Cambridge physics prof.
bloomin heck is this still going ?
Apparently so tazzy.
Which means you still have an opportunity to say something 
Or wasn't that why you were asking ? 
This topic has been closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
