Just read it´s been the hottest October in recorded history (70 years)down here in Malaga. We should have had cooler weather & rainy days but so far it´s still Summer. Something is not right.

I am not sure there are many experts that still deny things are getting warmer.
I thought the main arguement now is whether the actions of humans are actually causing this or whether it is just a natural cycle that the planet goes through, that it has done for millions of years before we arrived and will probably be doing millions of years after we leave.

the definite points, the planets climate changes, global warming may mean local cooling, and CO2 should raise the temperature.

Issues, do the actions of humans, small insignificant specks on such a big planet, have an affect.

my view is that global warming is irrelevant, more important is energy, food and water resources and population levels.

I dont deny global warming but things like a "recorded history of 70 years" make me laugh. That is insignificant when the earth is 4.5 billion years old.

…because there's so much bullsh1t about it?

Don't forget global warming is a benefit to some countries, especially UK and north which will have their weather patterns of 1,000 years ago restored.

Don't forget global warming is a benefit to some countries, especially UK and north which will have their weather patterns of 1,000 years ago restored.

You mean apart from all the coast we will lose with rising sea levels?

Firstly, you're confusing the weather with climate, and secondly, experts (at least, ones with any kind of expertise in climate science) don't deny that man is contributing to climate change.

Because its a natural cycles. remember the Romans could grow vines in northern england and during the middle ages we had a mini ice age.

Basically a scientist can apply for a grant to prove that it is happening but will not get a grant to say that its not.

cos most scientists waste their time doing sh*t like this

Basically a scientist can apply for a grant to prove that it is happening but will not get a grant to say that its not

An oft-repeated assertion that isn't backed up with evidence.

We know that the earth undergoes natural cycles. This isn't news. For example, the output of the sun is low at the moment, so the earth should be colder than normal. It isn't, because of anthropogenic emissions.

Anyway, if you're so sure that it's all due to natural cycles, I await your paper with interest.

Dont read my papers read the many PHD's
😆

We need dissent and disagreement among the scientific community. It helps us refine are theories and make better models. Those that dissent on global warming are equivalent to defence lawyers defending the guilty; without them we would not have a robust judicial process.

For all those that go with the more convenient view that it either ain't happening or that man is not causing it – why would the vast majority of scientists in the field be so sure about it? What is their motive?

Scientists in denial are in the minority.

Some time soon people in certain parts of the world are going to start getting killed either directly or indirectly, and we in the west will be the ones killing them. This can only be tolerated because of the relentless process by which our own propaganda tells us that other people are not worth the same as us.

For the inevitable glut of myths that will get repeated, see here:

http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Dont read my papers read the many PHD's

You have a PhD in climate science?

No that was to tell YOU to read. Where did i even imply that i had a Phd? Fail.
FFS 😆

Glenp: motive is funding.

No that was to tell YOU to read. Where did i even imply that i had a Phd? Fail.

So you told me to "read the many PHDs"? How will reading a title help? Scientific papers are generally produced by people with PhDs. I would've thought that you would know that.

If you're referring to scientific papers, I have read them. That's why I have a reasonable understanding of climate science. If the best you can manage is repetition of old objections that were put to bed years ago, you have no argument at all.

Glenp: motive is funding.

Indeed, there are huge financial interests in denying anthropogenic climate change.

Funding for what? Are you suggesting that governments all around the world have been duped into the climate change agenda because some scientists want to carry out research? Incredible. Literally.

If there are "many PhD (papers)" that deny man made climate change there are many many more that declare the opposite. All that will happen is that some people will prevaricate and dodge the question because they don't feel that the case is proven… until it is too late. That's when people will die.

Its not my argument its between the PHD's
Why are you even falling for this clear Trolliage?

So you're trolling, and even stating that you are trolling, guido? Nice one.

If there are "many PhD (papers)" that deny man made climate change

There aren't! See http://www.grist.org/article/position-statements-hide-debate/

Because this thread content has been done about four-five times already?
Besides what diffrence can we make if India, china etc are geeting more destructive?

OK, that's why I used the word "if".

So the climate changes and some animals plants etc., maybe even us humans become extinct, so what? The only thing that's constant in this world is change. We've been what we are for seconds, if that, in the day of the life of the planet and I dare say it won't remember us as much more than a skin infection it got once. Who cares if some people die? We're not the most important thing in the universe. If we're disrupting things, I'm sure the planet will find some way of restoring it's equilibrium.

Ok we are most probably harming the planet and most of it is being done out of greed or other self interested motives but that it just part of life's natural struggle – survival of the fittest or he with the most money/influence gets the best looking girls and has the healthiest most successful kids.

It wouldn't be the end of the world if the Earth managed to find a way to get rid of us, I mean we don't add anything to the world do we?

We're just parasites.

For a lot of years Einstein's theory of relativity was held up as being perfect and able to describe the universe. Now it is shown that it breaks down when taking black holes into account. The moral of the story – just because the majority of scientists believe something to be correct, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct.

Speeder – your pretty much right, humans have not learned the lessons of our own distructive history so eventually we'll pay the price. If we we have some much influence on the planet and do nothing then we deserve it. Sad thing is those things we will destroy while killing ourselves. The story of Easter Island is a very good lesson that we are ignoring.

whether or not humans can influence the climate, cleaning up after ourselves and not throwing sh1t into the air/rivers/seas is just basic tidyness.
Being green, as in not wasting finite resources, so our children can enjoy some of them too, is just consideration for others. Morally we should look after the planet not waste it.
I kind of like the coastline where it is, if the sea rises 10m I'll be living in a beachside property…

£0.02

and another thing: Einstein's theories of relativity (general and special) have never been held to be perfect, there's always been argument. That's what science is.

the planet's fine, WE're fncked, it's our fault and it's getting worse.

see israel/palestine? – basically a war over water.

see darfur? – basically a war over water.

see the maldives? – not for long you won't…

if any of you are so sure that global warming is a myth/conspiracy, all you've got to do is gather some evidence, write it up with some graphs and stuff, and present it to nature/life/scientific american.

and you'll have your paper politely rejected, cos you've written a paper where you've already assumed your conclusion. and that's crap science. you've assumed global warming is a myth, and gone looking for evidence that agrees with you.

proper scientists – with white coats, glasses and everything, gather evidence, check it, look for more evidence from a different source, check that too, and then try to explain it all with a hypothesis. they then use the hypothesis to predict where they might find more evidence, if they find it, the hypothesis becomes a theory.

if global warming is a myth, why is it that although the sun is at the bottom of a 50 year cooling cycle, the north pole has nearly melted?

have a nice day 🙂

If we have caused such a great catastrophe putting in measures now to reduce our impact will be like cleaning up after a volcano with a dust pan & brush

The sad thing is, if you so much as question any of the details of climate change you get labelled a Climate Change Skeptic, which apparently is up there with Holocaust Denial.

This thread and the links in it being a perfect example..

There's a suspicious tendency for some people to deny it, not because they've read some authorative paper, but because it may cause some change to their wasteful, consumerist lifestles. Its much easier to believe that man made global warming is an evil 'socialist' conspiracy invented by governments to rob us of our taxes, and much more reassuring to accept ( often corporate/petrochemical sponsored)research that shows that the juries out.
I'm kind of worse than anyone, I think it IS a reality, but think its a lost cause, in fact it might be a good thing for the Earth to be rid of mammals and get back to more efficient fauna.
oops, I've just outed myself as a misanthropic paleontologist 😈

The climate change debate (TM) isn't about science anymore. Is doesn't matter to the politicians whether the climate is changing or what is responsible. Antropogenic climate change is a discursive fact in the eyes of the majority who reproduce it without understanding the science. Unfortunately this view is now increasingly used not for the sake of humanity, but for the political and economic ends of the most powerful countries and companies in the world.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to http://www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

there is no clear evidence for or against at the moment It needs further review and better modelling and before anyone starts with the "what do you know routine" 10 years as an environmental consultant to heavily polluting industries focusing on the reduction and management emissions to atmosphere, so f*ck all compared to the folks that just belive the hype.

"Though OISM's signatories did include reputable scientists, it also included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy; the only requirement for signing on was a bachelors degree in science. In fact, OISM's screening process was so lax that for a time the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. The OISM petition also came under fire for being deceptively packaged: The petition was accompanied by an article purporting to debunk global warming that was formatted to look as though it had been published in the journal of the respected National Academy of Sciences. The resemblance was so close that the NAS issued a public statement that the OISM petition "does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy."

Any scientific analysis or prediction is only as reliable as the data on which its founded.

Is the data on which current analysis is based reliable? Very, very questionable – the amount of data set selection and data manipulation (corrections and extrapolation) along with missing data, changes in collection method, unknown and unrecorded variables from a change in the paint used on stevenson screens, to change in thermometer from manual to electronic, through to urbanisation of the surroundings, has made it impossible to make a proper, reliable analysis of the data.

Because I really don't believe in following the hype and finding out for yourself, and having a fairly good scientific background, I've got data sitting on my computer for two rural weather stations that I know the surroundings have not significantly changed at (one that I did the records for for about 6 months in the early nineties), with (almost complete) daily records from 1959 through to present, that appears to indicate a mean temperature rise of about a degree (interestingly, the average minimum daily temp has not changed, but the average max daily temp has, bringing up the mean by a degree) – However so far I've been unable to ascertain the date of changes in thermometer or the calibration regime, which could easily throw things out…

When one generations data is mainly from (patchy) surface station records, another generation from satellite analysis, and historical data from a variety of small sample extrapolated ice core/tree growth records, it becomes very difficult to compare like with like with reliability, and when the differences are essentially small, a minor error or bias in the data can cause significant data problems,

epicyclo wrote:"Don't forget global warming is a benefit to some countries, especially UK and north which will have their weather patterns of 1,000 years ago restored."

We have absolutely no idea what would happen to our weather due to climate change. We can't even model the effect on ocean currents from predicted desalination, never mind all the other factors, but if the gulfstream shifts that'll change our climate a lot, never mind if it stalls which is conceivable. Rapid climate change, if you believe the theory anyway, is mainly notable for unpredictability. Droughts and blizzards, wars and rumours of wars… F

just goes to show it's all political rather science based, give it another 1000 years or so and we'll be able to see what's going on. The only thing that upsets me/gets on my nerves is when you hear young kids convinced that their world is **** beacuse of what they've been told rather than giving them a more balanced view.

for those that talk about china/india etc… being more polluting compared to the uk it is because a lot of large uk industries realised that they couldn't comply with uk regs so moved their factories to china, india and eastern europe where health, safety and environmental legislation are much slacker. Before we in the uk get all holier than tho we need to look at uk owned compaines do as a whole not just at what they do in this country.