[Closed] Anti Global warming books - recommendations?

Isn't global warming a 90s phrase?
Just look at any neocon us website - they'll point you in the right direction.

plenty of swivel eyed zealots with dubious theories.

real good science - missing

You mean you want to read something to reinforce your confidence in a belief that you've already made your mind up about?

(And yes, I know the left are just as bad at this)

As yet, no one has answered my original question.

If anyone has any reading recommendations, and not just their own take or political bias or interpretation on what it is I've actually asked, any book titles would be most welcomed.

I would imagine the lack of suggestions is because there aren't any credible books on "countering the Global Warming mindset that seems to have a grip on the media".

[b]Unspeak[/b] by Steven Poole: you might find the 'Climate Change' section in chapter 3 ('Nature') worth a read. It's a very good book that also covers some other favourite themes of debate on here. It will probably change the way you see all of them.

Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg makes for interesting reading.

Since you probably won't bother to read the [url= http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802143059?ie=UTF8&tag=unspeak-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0802143059 ]book[/url], here's a flavour of Poole's [url= http://unspeak.net/we-call-it-life/ ]work[/url].

Mayer Hilman - How We Can Save The Planet. A little dated now - less than 10 years old though. Well worth a read...

jimmyshand - Member
Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg makes for interesting reading.

lol

[img] [/img]

There's not really many good books out there which provide good scientific basis for or against global warming. Just hypotheses from both camps.

what do you mean by 'counter'?

are you looking for something sciency that prooves CO2/methane aren't greenhouse gases?

or something that approaches the subject with a level head, avoiding any doomsday indulgence (we all like a good disaster movie)?

'X is happening, Y will happen, we'll end up doing Z about it, life will carry on'

if you're looking for the latter, i can recommend 'the meaning of the 21st century' by James Martin.

[img] [/img]

in summary: 'we're facing a few problems that we really need to sort out, we've already made a good start so there's no need to lose any sleep over it. but it's important to keep doing a bit more, come back in 100 years and everything should be peachy'

(luckily, CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases, we wouldn't be here if they weren't, but they're so good at absorbing infrared that even only small amounts have a big effect, there isn't much to argue about, but i'm sure someone will try...)

And stop buying books. They're very environmentally unfriendly to make.

Just look at any neocon us website - they'll point you in the right direction.

That's a little unfair. George Bush was undoubtedly a neocon, and yet despite his, and many in his administration, having a background in the petroleum industry, he fully accepted the need to tackle climate change caused by human activity :

[url= http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html ]President Announces Clear Skies & Global Climate Change Initiatives[/url]

It takes a special kind of idiot to see all the evidence and yet still pretend climate change isn't occurring. Even George Bush wasn't that stupid.

.

......that counter the Global Warming mindset that seems to have a grip on the media?

Using the term "Global Warming" not only reveals a mindset, but as it's a term which has fallen out of favour in the media, that the OP really isn't paying very much attention to what is 'gripping the media'.

Here you are ........ get all the books, stickers, and the tee shirts here :

http://www.google.co.uk/products?q=global%20warming%20hoax&hl=en&ned=uk&tab=nf

Have you thought about facts and data rather than a polemic?IPCC report

The report was produced by 620 authors and editors from 40 countries, and reviewed by more than 620 experts and governments. Before being accepted, the summary was reviewed line-by-line by representatives from 113 governments during the 10th Session of Working Group I,[8] which took place in Paris, France, between 29 January and 1 February 2007.

On the issue of global warming and its causes, the SPM states that:[5]

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal."
"Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."
Footnote 6 on page 3 of the summary indicate very likely and likely mean "the assessed likelihood, using expert judgment", are over 90% and 66% respectively.

You will struggle to find a scientific book as the science is unequivocal [except to non scientists who get confused about proof and facts] and pretty much up there with evolution for convergent data to support warming.
Some right wing ex tory publishes regularily on this but I forget his name and he is not a scientist and the quality of the "research" is poor.

Ernie - thanks for the info, but you too are sliding into the same mire that tarnished the first few replies.

The question stems from Clarkson's Sunday Times article from 2006, now published in his "Driven to Distraction" book where he talks about the Bjorn Lomborg book, "The Sceptical Environmentalist".

That is what prompted the original thread as I wondered what else was out in print that countered or at least provided a counter point to the idea that we're causing the premature demise to the Planet (or how ever you’d like to phrase it).

Thanks for the ideas thus far.

Ernie - thanks for the info, but you too are sliding into the same mire that tarnished the first few replies.

Does it matter what I think ? I provided you with a source where you can secure the reading material, the tee shirts, and the bumper stickers.

So you can now comfortably join all those who believe that the whole issue is just an international conspiracy by governments across the world, to force people to pay more taxes or not have fun or whatever other bizarre explanation they can dream up.

We have all fallen into the mire of not being daft and getting our facts about science from people other than Clarkson and other right wing polemicists.

Indeed

You won't find any decent science that agues against man made climate change as that is what all the evidence points to.

TJ - I love your conviction that you are so right!

You won't find any decent science

Ernie - you've slipped even further into the mire than I at first supposed.
You have taken a perfectly benign & innocent question, warped it one way and with some conviction and loaded phrases you would have others believe almost by inference that I wish to join their number or am consolidating my own stance on this issue - a quantum leap of supposition if ever there was one (don't fret though as you're not alone in drawing conclusions on little or no evidence!).

Read junkyards post - Its not my conclusions. The science clearly only points one way. YOu will not find any decent evidence the other way at all

why not disprove TJ 's claim with some science [rather than a pithy put down]and some evidence ?

have a look here

http://www.drroyspencer.com/research-articles/satellite-and-climate-model-evidence/

you would have others believe almost by inference that I wish to join their number or am consolidating my own stance on this issue - a quantum leap of supposition if ever there was one

I'm just providing you with a source for books on the "global warming hoax". Now of you want to wait a while before getting the tee shirt and bumper sticker, then that's absolutely fine of course. I was only trying to be helpful me ol'fruit - don't have a go at me.

BTW, how long do you think it'll take before you make your mind up ? ........since apparently [i]"the question stems from Clarkson's Sunday Times article from 2006"[/i]

I'm not sure that it's an issue which should be left on the back burner for a few decades.

I'm not sure that it's an issue which should be left on the back burner for a few decades.

I wouldn't worry about it. We're either so far ****ered that a couple of decades will make no difference and the human race is doomed! (not a bad thing really, at least the planet will recover nicely and some new species will take over that won't spoil the party for everyone in an amazingly short time)

or

It's all bunch of tree hugging hippy crap and we'll all be fine.

To be honest over population and food/water shortages will do for us well before we get too hot.

have a look here

Apparently the author Roy Spencer, not only believes that climate change isn't man-made, but that God created all the species and evolution never occurred.

[i]"I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution"[/i] Roy Spencer

What's your theory on evolution Ti29er ?

just because he's a mad god botherer does not invalidate his research on the satalite data.

It's a bit like accusing you of being a skirt wearing fruit and therefore any thing you've ever said or done has validity
(no idea what you do in your personal life, but it's as good an example as any)

not that I agree with him particularly, but all sides of an argument need to examined properly as the truth normally sits somewhere between the two camps of zealots

It's a bit like accusing you of .......

I'm not accusing him of anything.

I am simply pointing out what his opinion is in the Science V Creation debate.

Which I think is quite relevant .............don't you ?

not really, if someone was a hindu for example , would that invalidate their scientific research because they believe in a multitude of gods?

(surely in your argument, belief in any god is unscientific as it contradicts the scientific paradigm)

Dr Spencer thinks you can model the climate using a 4th order polynomial. why did no-one say it was that easy? - who needs supercomputers...?

he's an idiot.

I bet a lot of climatologists believe the Gaia theory which is as equally nutty as creationisim. Should we ignore them as well?

If someone believes creationism has a better scientific basis than evolution then I think it is right to question their judgement in any field

James Lovelock's 'The Revenge of Gaia' is a good read. It certainly counters the media's global warming mindset, but maybe not in the direction you're looking for.

they would argue the same about us though TJ as we are bunch of heathens who need to be burned at the stake. Who's right?

there's only one way to settle it

[img] [/img]

You committed the heresy of questioning climate science which just doesn't do.

You'll be lucky if you get off with being burned at the stake.

...would that invalidate their scientific research....

Who said anything about 'invalidating his scientific research' ?

I would have thought however, his conclusion that there is insufficient scientific proof of evolution and more evidence that God created all species, is highly relevant.

As it suggests that he's see scientific issues from a very different perspective to most other people.

And I think it is rather useful to know that - don't you ?

burning would liberate CO2 and other combustion products. Pyrolysis with suitable and sufficient abatement technology in a couple of scrubber towers would be a far more suitable and eco demise. Particularly if the steam generated is then used to power a couple of alternative treatment technology plants such as Tempico Rotoclaves for the treatment of clinical waste so that it can be recycled as well rather than go to landfill. 😀

And I think it is rather useful to know that - don't you ?

No, as I couldn't care less about climate change either for or against. Life's far too short to worry about such silliness. I just enjoy the short lifespan I have rather than waste it worrying about stuff I can do bugger all to change 😀

Considering we are discussing this using evil computers made from a non renewable resource with electricity made from burning dinosaurs It's all be a bit silly anyway. 😉

LOL ! I've just read up some more on Dr Spencer 😀

Apparently he has also said, quote :

[i]"The possibility then presented itself that, despite all I had previously thought, Genesis, the first book of the Bible, might actually be true! "[/i]

So the world might have been created in 6 days then ? 😀

Sorry tazzy, your first witness has no credibility ........got any more ?

This video is one of the best things Ive seen on anti global warming theory. Seems to have lots of credible scientists giving their views

can i post some science please?

His satellite data seems some way short of denial and he clearly makes no attempt to deny it just debate the rate /mechanisms involved.

resulting in their prediction of too much global warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.

they are therefore forecasting too much global warming and associated climate change in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions

But if we look at a shorter, more recent period of time, say since the [b]record warm year of 1998,[/b][my bold] one could say that it has cooled in the last 10-12 years. But, as I mentioned above, neither of these can tell us anything about whether warming is happening “now”, or will happen in the future.

PS yes if he thinks the balance of evidence points too creationism over evolution I think it is fair to question his ability to intepret dataas he is clearly an idiot as he is spectacularily wrong. - yes inflamatory but use some data to refute this.
Tazzy any support for the assertion/claim that climate scientist believe in Gaia? I know the sceptics like to make unsubstantiated claims so any chance of a source for that outlandish claim?

Tazzy any support for the assertion/claim that climate scientist believe in Gaia? I know the sceptics like to make unsubstantiated claims so any chance of a source for that outlandish claim?

none what so ever, but you tree huggers are all the same and based on the hard evidence of what I've seen on telly, an interactive vote on sky 3 and what some bloke told me down the pub......... I FIND YOU GUILTY of being a hysterical, mung bean eating eco-fascist...so there! 😀

based on the hard evidence of what I've seen on telly, an interactive vote on sky 3 and what some bloke told me down the pub

When of course what we [i]should be[/i] doing, is reading the Old Testament 😀

as a vegan I find that highly offensive I am off for a spliff to calm down and chant on a lay line to an ill defined druidh deity and hope it will appease your bad kharma by the burning of the correct incense.

I forgive you brother peace out 8)

I'm with tazzy on this one. Enjoyed an impromtu display earlier by an F18 Hornet playing around after his RIAT display at Fairford, burning up huge amounts of irreplaceable hydrocarbons, for which I thank the pilot, and if it wasn't for the cost of the ticket I'd be there tomorrow watching lots of aircraft doing the same and enjoying every second of it. Off down the pub now to consume some carbohydrates. Enjoy your debate, chaps, nighty night.

The thing is, and this is where many seem to be coming unstuck from the very outset (poor quality schooling no doubt), I asked for books on the subject.

Thereafter you get the most opinionated members of the congregation chipping in with their prized opinions with no more backup than the England defence:

plenty of swivel eyed zealots with dubious theories. real good science - missing

In a round-about way we did manage to unearth some material; shame we had to summount such opinionated zealots on the way!

chipping in with their prized opinions with no more backup than the England defence:

The irony of having my schooling questioned by a believer in god and denier of global warming is trully priceless.

Being called a zealot by a religous person who bases their world view on FAITH rather than EVIDENCE is even better.
Unlike you if you want to disuade us have you thought about presenting some data and evidence to change our mind as , unlike you, we base our judgement on things KNOWN and demonstratable rather than FAITH.....data is far more powerful than your petty insults
IRONY 10/10

It's a strange old topic, it seems to polarise opinion and yet no one actually knows for definite what's going on.
Based on the data from the limited information available is is most likely that man is contributing/accelerating global climatic change against the model that's been built. The problem is that as soon as a statistical confidence in test data is turned into "all scientists agree 100% in the whole world" in the popular press it stops any rational debate and it becomes an exercise in polemic which brings no benefit.

Tazzy there is no such thing as a fact or a proof in science only data the suggest or supports [or not] a position Some people doubt evolution some people doubt the big bang, some people even doubt gravity and Einstein. There is debate about how many dimensions there are and we cannot combine quantum and non quantum mechanics. We have yet to find the Higgs - Boson and we had evoloutionary theory without a mechanism [DNA] for a while. In science nothing is really certain it either has evidence to support it or it does not but doubt is always there. Clearly with man made global warming it is either true or false - everyone knows this but we can never say with 100% certaintity which it is. We need to look at the data and see what it says and what explanation best fits the data. Which account is most probable.
With this approach the vast majority of world scientist[nothing has universal agreement remember] have concluded that it is very likely that mans activity has greated a warming effect.
Dont confuse what an ignorant journalist writes and what a scientist says I doubt very much you will find a scientist saying it is 100% true - certainly not in a publication - etc as you suggest..you seem to be forgetting that it is the journalist who are known for oversimplify and misrepresent facts rather than scientists- see daily mail and cancer or any tabloid paper. Any published scientific paper is peer reviewed and referenced ...this is a far higher standard than the musings of Clarkson and other journalist.
I do agree them media presentation is poor, the general understanding of science is poor [ sometimes even by scientists] but the evidence still supports the conclusion that man made global warming is the far more probable explantion of what we are observing.
If you wish to convine people otherwise you must explain why an alternative account better fits the observed data rather than just say it is wrong. This is where it is very difficult to have a coherent scientific account of what is occuring and people just say it is a natural cycle which implies that man burning fossil fuels [ stored carbon - a known greenhouse gas] is somehow natural and will have no effect. Prima facie this is a rather weak starting point.
You can think the world is flat, creationism is how we got here and that England are the best team in the world unfortunately there is little evidence to support any of these views and there is little evidence to counter anthropogenic climate change.
Unfortunately the data matters very little to one side and is all we have to the other.

junkyard- you seem to think that I have an issue with climate change science, I don't.
I do have an issue with the poor reporting of science in the popular press and the fact that joe public will often take what some bloke told them on the news as gospel and never look any further into it.

The word fact can be used several ways, but in general in science, "facts" refer to the observations. They are best when they are repeatable observations under controlled conditions, such as "It is a fact that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum." This is the part of science which will be the same a century from now, unless more precise measurements show otherwise.

The word "fact" has several meanings, which can be very confusing. In popular useage it can mean either "observation," "theory," or "truth." As an example of each, one can say, "it is a fact that every time I have dropped this ball, it fell to the ground." That is what has been observed so far, and the word "fact" can be replaced with "observation." One can also say, "it is a fact that every time I have dropped this ball, gravity pulled it to the ground." Even though this statement appears very similar to the first, "gravity" really refers to a theory proposed to explain why the ball is observed to fall. Finally, if one so thoroughly believes that the theory of gravity is really "true," he could replace "a fact" with "true," which would take the meaning beyond science into the realm of his personal convictions.

there are an awful lot of "facts and truths" quoted on both sides of the argument 😕

In very simple terms there are a few facts, man is releasing CO2 and methane into the atmosphere, CO2 and Methane are greenhouse gases, Climate measurements suggest global average temps are rising.

It doesn't take a huge leap to connect these facts. The problems begin when we try and look for alternatives. Climate science is not a discipline with answers to everything, there are a lot of questions about the past and as a result now.

But imo worrying about climate change is pointless, i would worry more about resource depletion. We can not keep on using resources the way we are for many more decades before we hit a crunch. As for those who think we can come through it without anything to worry about, i would argue differently. There have been many civilisations who exploited there way to their own destruction. Why should we be any different?

[img] [/img]

In answer to the OP, Nigel Lawson's book helps develop the debate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Appeal_to_Reason:_A_Cool_Look_at_Global_Warming

tazzymtb - Member

....the popular press it stops any rational debate ......

I do have an issue with the poor reporting of science in the popular press and the fact that joe public will often take what some bloke told them on the news as gospel and never look any further into it.

Why do you keep banging on about the "popular press" tazzy ?

It is precisely the popular press which keeps drip feeding bollox to joe public that "Climate Change" is just a hoax and international conspiracy by governments to tax people more. Just a couple of examples ......

The Daily Mail :

[url= http://www.****/debate/article-1230113/The-devastating-book-debunks-climate-change.html ]The devastating book which debunks climate change[/url]

Quote : [i]"We shall be paying this through soaring 'green taxes' on everything......."[/i]

The Sun :

[url= http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/mysun/2896598/No-green-light-for-eco-issues.html ]Do climate claims have you worried?[/url]

Quote : [i]"For goodness sake, hasn't anyone learnt yet what lying, thieving, cheating charlatans this government are and their capability to use any means necessary to extort more taxes out of us plebs, even if it means lying through their teeth?[/i]

And : [i]"The whole 'hoax' is just an international conspiracy to shake the pockets of the rich nations and give to the poor ones so they can waste it"[/i]

And of course Ti29er claims that this thread and the question he's raised stems from a Jeremy Clarkson article published in a newspaper.

You're not too hot on "facts" ........are you tazzy ?

Ti29er - Member

The thing is, and this is where many seem to be coming unstuck from the very outset (poor quality schooling no doubt), I asked for books on the subject.

Thereafter you get the most opinionated members of the congregation chipping in with their prized opinions with no more backup than the England defence

You sound surprise Ti29er.

And yet I don't expect for a minute that you are.

If I posted a thread asking whether anyone knew of any good books concerning how the world was created in 6 days, I would fully expect amongst other things, to get a fair amount of stick.

So don't come all this, 'I'm shocked by your responses' bollox

tazzy I didnt think you had a problem it is clear what you think - once I run it via my sarcasm filter- my opening sentence does make it sound like I am lecturing you ..sorry not my intention FACT 😉 - just trying to explain that science cannot have truth or 100% fact over an issue like this which is what the man in the street wants and where there is debate deniers use it as "proof" that global warning is wrong.

OP excellent news now you have a creationist scientist and an ex tory chancellor and journalist with an arts degree in PPE to choose for your scientific information ...tough call that one

OP some links cited here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Non-committal_statements
Please note re Scientific Institutions that

With the release of the revised statement[95] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[

junkyard I completely agree with you.

Ernie- I dont need no stinking facts, I rely on my faith that the world was created by beaded chap who bears a passing resemblance to charlton heston, who made the world in 6 days (created the internet and porn and spent sunday knocking one out)will save all the righteous people on leave you lot of heathens to a fate worse than jeremy kyle.

Tazzy can not take any subject on silly track seriously, ever, FACT!! 😀

Climate science is a very primitive science. We know some things, but we don’t know most of the needed facts. Today, this system can only be evaluated empirically because it is not yet understood and as such conclusive evidence is not there. There is still a long long way to go before we know how or if are influencing the planet.

As said further up the post, the main thing we should be concentrating on is the use of the earths natural resources, something we can make a difference about.

Might be some nutters, sorry, I mean climate change denial-ists for you to follow up [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/anti-global-warming-books-recommendations/page/2 ]here[/url]

Go to Amazon, search for The Sceptical Environmentalist and, LO! a list of 'people wot bought this also bought this' will appear - happy shopping...

I do have an issue with the poor reporting of science in the popular press and the fact that joe public will often take what some bloke told them on the news as gospel and never look any further into it.

So do I. My issue is with the media's obsession with balance. You will not find a credible scientist who believes that climate change has nothing to do with humans. However, the media will always try to find someone to give the other opinion. Fortunately, said other opinion is becoming quite hard to come by these days, thanks mostly to good education.

As someone who is actively researching carbon sequestration, I have a fair amount of contact with people who work in some of the 'positive feedback' areas such as when permafrost melts, releasing methane, raising the temperature, causing more permafrost to melt, releasing more methane etc. There is no question that climate change is happenining, or indeed that it is man made. The questions are how much, and are we too late to stop it.

If you think the costs of trying to reduce emissions are harsh, the state the global economy could be in when most of the world's cities are under water (or being defended from rising waters) should make you wince a bit too. That's just financial cost, never mind the massive humanitarian impacts.

Personally I think we're pissing in the wind trying to stop an already catastrophic sea level rise. The ethical question is this: The worst will probably happen not during our lives, but the lives of our children. Do they deserve the mess we're leaving them? At least we could start trying to clear up!

FWIW, there's an increasing body of evidence linking the start of cultivation of rice ca. 5000 bp to preventing the last 'scheduled' ice age. That's 'just' methane from flooding a few paddy fields and turning the soil anoxic. Surely that's childs' play compared to what we've been releasing to the atmosphere over the last 250 years...

There are some interesting articles by Freeman Dyson out there on Climate change and the reliability of the models used to predict it.

I agree that the models aren't perfect but in their absence there's little else we can do apart from wait and see how our global and largely irreversible experiment goes!

rather than waste it worrying about stuff I can do bugger all to change

Understanding FAIL.

Michael Crichton - State of Fear - It is a fiction book but contains good references which you can follow up on.

......Climate change and the reliability of the models used to predict it.

........there's little else we can do apart from wait and see......

There is no need to "predict" it..........climate change is happening right [i]now[/i]. And it has been occurring for many decades.

Obviously what the global climate will be like in 20, 40, or 60 years time is uncertain, but there is no doubt at all that significant climate change has occurred, and is currently taking place right now.

but there is no doubt at all that significant climate change has occurred, and is currently taking place right now.

and has occured since well before mankind

I am not aware of significant climate change occurring over a period of decades before mankind ...... have you got any proof ?

EDIT : Except of of course, when an asteroid hit the Earth and the resulting climate change wiped out more than half of the planet's species.

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.

[img] [/img]

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 [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Global-Warming-Bollocks-Stanley-Feldman/dp/1844547183/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1279571568&sr=1-5 ]this[/url]. 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?

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

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, [url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jul/18/ben-goldacre-gillian-mckeith-twitter ]even though she's got a PhD dontyouknow[/url], 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.