“The thing that throws a spanner in the works is that there are academics who disagree, and quite a few of them. These tend to be people working in fields close enough to give a reasoned opinion on the situation, but not in the field itself – possibly due to the fact that they know they wouldnt get funding for going against the grain – remarkable how fast your position can be replaced when you’re not bringing in research grants.”

Got any evidence to support that, CoffeeKing?

What really shows ignorance is that way that people think the term ‘scientists say x’ means that there’s one single body of scientists that issues some kind of definitive statement on matters. There is no such single body. That’s just like saying ‘cyclists do this or that’. Scientists have no more obligation to each other than cyclists do. Just because you ride a bike doesn’t make you a red-light runnign hooligan does it? And we don’t like being all lumped together.

So why lump scientists together?

“The thing that throws a spanner in the works is that there are academics who disagree, and quite a few of them. These tend to be people working in fields close enough to give a reasoned opinion on the situation, but not in the field itself – possibly due to the fact that they know they wouldnt get funding for going against the grain

So some scientists, who havent done any of the research into the matter dont agree with those who have done the research…… I know who I’d believe, especially when you consider the rigorous levels of peer review that most research goes through and not just by those directly involved in similar research.

Any long term aims are pointless while we allow the population to grow uncontrolled. We should stop adding people to a full planet.

A useful link for the denialists: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/feb/12/christopher-booker-george-monbiot-climate-change

Well if the only way fanatics can support their case is to pick apart obviously flawed articles by others, you do wonder just how good their evidence is. I love the way he points out that short term fluctuations can’t be used as evidence, then proceeds to do exactly that himself. There’s a certain irony to the fact he reports the warmest years ever recorded – but records only go back 150 years which is a miniscule timescale in global terms and renders such stats effectively meaningless.

Trimix has made THE most pertinent point of the whole thread. Population!

If every person in the world had the same CO2 producing capability of Westerners such as the Americans, we would be in deep trouble.

We need to control numbers, but the population isn’t growing much in the developed world – we can’t afford kids easily.

The planet probably has more people than it can support already, but due to economic hardship in developing countries, these people don’t get enough food, let alone CO2 burning luxuries.

Children are viewed as pension providers in the developing world. Producing as many children as possible offers a better chance of secure retirement as there is such a high rate of attrition – poor healthcare, nutrition isses etc.

We do live in a sheltered corner of the world!

Spongebob, the alternative answer to that problem lies within your very own words, read them again and think really, really, really hard about what your saying. You could argue the world is not overpopulated.

Children are viewed as pension providers in the developing world.

They are in the developed world too. One of the reasons for the pension crises in the UK is the shrinking working population. Obviously more children would help to alleviate that problem.