[Closed] Global Warming - Not our doing?

You can't beat volcanic erruptions for Co2 emissions either.

1/10

A politician said and you think you saw a TV programme once? I'm convinced!

Actually 3/10 - extra points added for contradicting yourself and not really getting to a point.

It's funny how religious fundies like Mr Sammy Wilson can have unerring faith in a god, with zero evidence of it's existence, and zero acceptance of what looks to be a sizable amount of evidence suggesting human contribution to accelerated climate change.

..we are told were produced by the COOLING of the Indian Ocean! I though all the experts have been telling us the sea is warming up?

Although I'm quite skeptical over the hysteria surrounding 'global warming' (after all we could just be finally coming out of last ice age, who really knows?) the cooling of the Indian Ocean is actually a by-product of the sea around the Antarctic warming up, melting the snowcap and releasing cooler water into the seas.

This is such fun!

This is such fun!

What is? Trolling badly or displaying your ignorance in public?

Apparently cows farting is a major problem too.

The correct term is "Climate Change" not "global warming" for a start. And even if the planet is warming that doesn't mean Britain will warm, too.

But my own view is that
a) In geological terms we are still leaving the last ice age
b) The human race, and more importantly our usage of its resources that apparently are affecting our climate, is but a blink in time. Even if we are affecting the climate, sooner or later we'll run out of stuff to pollute the planet with and more than likely the planet will put it all right all on it's own. A small geological cough. That's all we are.

Sad. Sammy Wilson's a known idiot. Even his party think he's an idiot, but to trot out this sort of stuff and to pretend there's some sort of debate about climate change is a bit old hat. No?

Even Bush accepted this stuff was real...

And Bush was a retard

[size=32]TROLL![/size]

For what it's worth: I take the [url= http://royalsociety.org/landing.asp?id=1278 ]climate change views of the Royal Society[/url] a lot more seriously than some raving politician.

Troll, but for the sake of pointing out your errors................

yes tempreatures fluctuate, and yes there are times when there has been more CO2 or the plannet has been warmer.

Its the speed thats the problem, but yes everythign works in cycles, its hard to produce CO2 when your under-water/starving/dessicated.

Good excuse for this:

[url=

G interviews Sammy Wilson, from 2mins 30[/url]

Personally I take the views of the RS with as much scepticism as the views of anybody else who starts off their position with the idea that science is somehow a democracy (I'll note that in Galileo's day, "scientific consensus" was that the Earth was the centre of the universe).

Thing is, if it is our doing - so what?? what is "the environment" anyway.

If it was 3 degrees colder 50 years ago - would difference does it make today? naff all thats what. The human race has always got problems and they're always sorting them out. And what does "global warming" really affect?? its just us, human beings. Life on earth has coped through far worse events, so thers little point in flashing up pics of cute looking animals and telling everyone to stop buying Range Rovers.

Theres no way that the human race will stop burning this oil. The only solution will be a technological one.

In 5 billion years the Sun will burn out anyway.

If it was 3 degrees colder 50 years ago - would difference does it make today? naff all thats what.

The issue is more about whether it will be 3 degrees warmer in 50 years (or less). And if you don't know what difference that makes then I have some low-lying seafront land to sell to you 🙂

And what does "global warming" really affect?? its just us, human beings.

And are a few billion human beings worth sacrificing so we can drive Range Rovers?

This is the crassest and most retarded troll I have seen on here in ages. What a berk...

This is the crassest and most retarded troll I have seen on here in ages.

High praise indeed!

We all know that global warming's not really. [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/columnists/petermullen/4096741.Snow__Let___s_talk_global_warming/ ]It snowed in London[/url]!

"Sad. Sammy Wilson's a known idiot. Even his party think he's an idiot, but to trot out this sort of stuff and to pretend there's some sort of debate about climate change is a bit old hat. No?"

I have known him for a number of years, he is far from an idiot and if you ever had the chance to meet him you would realise what a decent, kind, helpful gentleman he is.

I concur with his comments re the global warming thing, contrary to wandering like a lost sheep he is able to have a different opinion than the masses, I think that is a breath of fresh air!

much more co2 released and absorbed by the sea than humans can ever make a significant contribution to.

I though all the experts have been telling us the sea is warming up?

The sea is a big place mate.

Global warming means on average the entire globe is warming. It's not called local warming.

That's why people now talk about climate change - they realised that the term 'warming' was confusing simple people who looked out of their window at the snow and said 'Warming? Whatever are you talking about?'

And why bother telling us that human beings are just a blip in time? This is obvious to anyone over the age of 14 with more than half a brain - however, when people die it's still quite sad and should be avoided.

Life on earth has coped through far worse events

Hahaha. Some things survived the precambrian extinction, so that means it's all fine and we can all die slow deaths and enjoy it.

Dear god.

Dear god.

Don't bring her into it or we'll be here all night!

contrary to wandering like a lost sheep he is able to have a different opinion than the masses, I think that is a breath of fresh air!

That would be an intelligent thing to do.

Or you could put it a different way - he sticks his head in the sand and doesn't listen to people who've been researching it all their lives. Is that so intelligent?

I am convinced that most people haven't anything like enough brain power to cope with the decisions that they have to make in the modern world. So perhaps they ought to behave like sheep after all.

Climate Change and Global Warming are two different things and people do seem to get them mixed up and associate one with the other which isn’t necessarily true. Just web search them. It’s a bit like CFC and “The Greenhouse effect”

Just read the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report and then see what you think about Climate Change.

That newspaper article is thoroughly depressing.

I just knew when we got some snow that some folk would jump up and down and say "Look, snow, all that nasty science must be wrong."

If there are any actual sceptics here (rather than just poor trolls) then PLEASE read the Royal Society link that I posted above.
Don't worry, they aren't some frothy greeny group. They are the national academy of science of the UK and the Commonwealth, a world-respected collection of scientists.
And yes they do have several differing views on climate change (one of them actually appeared on that Channel 4 "The Great Climate Swindle" mockery) but one thing they are very clear on is scientific consensus:

[b]Misleading arguments 2: Many scientists do not think that climate change is a problem.
Some scientists have signed petitions stating that climate change is not a problem.[/b]

There are some differences of opinion among scientists about some of the details of climate change
and the contribution of human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels. Researchers continue to
collect more data about climate change and to investigate different explanations for the evidence.
However, the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change agree on the main
points, even if there is still some uncertainty about particular aspects, such as how the concentration of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will change in the future.
In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years, and none rejected it.
There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in
their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions.
Often all these individuals and organisations have in common is their opposition to the growing
consensus of the scientific community that urgent action is required through a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. But the opponents are well-organised and well-funded. For instance, a
petition was circulated between 1999 and 2001 by a campaigning organisation called the Oregon
Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM), which called on the US Government to reject the Kyoto
Protocol. The petition claimed that “proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the
environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of
mankind”.
These extreme claims directly contradict the conclusions of the IPCC 2001 report, which states that
“reducing emissions of greenhouse gases to stabilize their atmospheric concentrations would delay
and reduce damages caused by climate change”.
The petition was circulated together with a document written by individuals affiliated to OISM and to
the George C Marshall Institute, another campaigning organisation. On 20 April 1998, the US National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a warning about the document circulated with the petition because
it had been presented “in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.” The statement pointed out: “The NAS Council
would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences
and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or
in any other peer-reviewed journal”.

That newspaper article is thoroughly depressing.

I just knew when we got some snow that some folk would jump up and down and say "Look, snow, all that nasty science must be wrong."

Isn't it just. The [url= http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/features/letters/4109354.Global_warming/ ]letter I wrote in response[/url] was published on Saturday.

(Yes, I've turned into one of those people who write to the local paper...)

I must admit, while the arguments for and against global warming being a man made/accelerated issue are quite strong and contradictory, and both sides have their own motivations for arguing those points, I think the investment in arguing and assessing it are a little pointless. Many of the people who claim it is man-accelerated also claim we are at or past the tipping point now anyway, I think the most sensible way of working is to assume it will happen and work towards living with it, rather than being and ant trying to prevent a steam roller from crushing it.

And are a few billion human beings worth sacrificing so we can drive Range Rovers?

Range Rovers sales figures would suggest the answer is "Yes" so long as we're not in a Recession. 😉

And in any case, if human beings are the cause of the problem, and loads of them die, won't that just solve the problem anyway?

And is that the only reason global warming is bad - because people will die?
in which case, if we can stop that happening without solving global warming is everything ok?

if i buy a solar powered house boat with desalinator will i be fine?

"b) The human race, and more importantly our usage of its resources that apparently are affecting our climate, is but a blink in time. Even if we are affecting the climate, sooner or later we'll run out of stuff to pollute the planet with and more than likely the planet will put it all right all on it's own. A small geological cough. That's all we are."

Peterpoddy is for once quite right. However what he fails to add is the planet changing may mean the human species dies out or more likely it drastically reduces in size causing unbelievable sufferring to countless millions. I would want to avoid this, some dont seem to care.

Well, you really do have to have quite a philisophical view of the universe to describe the extinction of human life as "the only reason it's a bad thing"....

😉

I believe it is called the K factor, I could be wrong though (its happened before!) - the damage a species does to its surroundings, with 1 being the point where it goes from sustainable to unsustainable. Humans are way past 1, but so are many animal species, which grow and grow, destroy the surroundings and animal life, then die out and survive only as small pockets. It's all perfectly natural and wont extinct our whole species as we are remarkable adaptors, though its results wont be pleasant. The thing is, what angle do we come at it from. Do we assume that survival of the fittest is best, so teh most adaptable (and probably most wealthy) will survive the climate change, or do we take on the "save everyone, stop everything" approach and spend our time trying to maintain our population?

The thing is though, watching rabbits on a small island breeding until there are so many of them that their population crashes is slightly sad, in a funny way. Whereas watching 6 billion people, each of whom can think, speak and feel in the same way as every other one can descending from a spectacular, brilliant civilisation into madness, anarchy, war, famine and pestilence is utterly tragic, especially if it is in any way avoidable but is not avoided.

😯

Ah right, so we're only really talking about the fall of human civilisation and the [i]near[/i] extinction of the human species (taking with it a very sizable chunk of the animal kingdom).

That sounds fine.

Maybe the chimps will make a better go of it when they are in charge

[img] [/img]

That's a great image

As has corectly been said every species uses up its resources, expands its population and then crashes, key difference is that we know we are doing it.

As has corectly been said every species uses up its resources, expands its population and then crashes, key difference is that we know we are doing it.

I suspect many species are aware they are eating up all the resources (as the resources run low). Key thing is why are we obliged to do something about it, why not accept it and prepare for the next phase in order to lessen the blow? I mean if you want to stop climate change, start chemically castrating everyone NOW!

I mean if you want to stop climate change, start chemically castrating everyone NOW!

No no, we have to be subtler than that dear boy...

[img] [/img]
[url= http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369 ]Total Fertility Rate, UK[/url]

An article by a climatologist I read recently pointed out that figures used by the Met Office for climate modelling have overestimated the accumulated warmth of the oceans from 1950-2003 by 200%. As the current models were "validated" by replicating this past ocean build-up of heat, and future projections are based on this warmth persisting, they will have to be revised. Oceanographers have correlated ocean changes to the sun's magnetic cycle. Current dogma states magnetic cycles cannot cause climate change, yet the ESA is spending millions of Euros to find a mechanism to explain the correlation of dense reflective cloud to the sun's magnetic status, only recently discovered by Danish scientists. The sun's next cycle is over two years late and the magnetic field is lower now than at any time recorded, mimicking the beginning of a cold period during Tudor times called the Little Ice Age, which brought widespread famine, disease and social unrest. It was marked by a southerly drift in the jetstream, wet summers and cold winters, with the Thames freezing over. The jetstream which directs Atlantic storm tracks, shifted exactly as predicted by this theory in summer 2007, bringing torrential rain to the West Country. It did so again in '08. Russian and Chinese funds are buying up millions of acres of food-growing land in the tropics. Their climate figures show noticable cooling until at least 2030. The UN model is based on the Met Office figures which are wrong.
The scientist concerned is Peter Taylor, and he provides ecological data for environmental consultancy Ethos (www.ethos-uk.com). I'd rather believe him than people given money by a government to provide figures to back up policies that allow said government to increase taxation. Sceptical, moi?
Oh yeah.

"thing is why are we obliged to do something about it, why not accept it and prepare for the next phase in order to lessen the blow?"

Well I prefer the option of reducing the negative effects on people but then some people say I'm idealistic.

"I mean if you want to stop climate change, start chemically castrating everyone NOW!"

Would that help or would the western world just increase its consumption.... also who would make the cheap crap we need for us?

The UK contributes 3% of global emissions

We do now, I wonder how much we contributed 30 years ago and I wonder how much China contributes to global emissions now that we have most of our manufacturing done there.

I'd rather believe him than people given money by a government to provide figures to back up policies that allow said government to increase taxation.

I always find it amusing that people think that Governments just love to tax us.

Who are these people given money by the government to back up their policies? In my experience it certainly doesnt work like that. Would you rather have the scientist paid by big business instead? Having been involved in eaxamples of both at the frontline I know which I think is better.

How do explain Mars heating at the same rate ...?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

[img] [/img]

Well I prefer the option of reducing the negative effects on people but then some people say I'm idealistic.

As far as I'm aware, this will never be the case, AFAIK this is a catastrophic event, like a nuclear reaction - once "tipped" it cannot be lessened, like tempering a nuclear bomb by placing a few sandbags over it(only over a lot longer duration!).

Would that help or would the western world just increase its consumption.... also who would make the cheap crap we need for us?

Doesnt matter, it'd average out lower anyway in a few decades. Cheap crap wouldnt get made, people would create things of value and craft again, only things they needed and only things that helped. People would be forced to find new and ingenious ways of deriving energy from the earth etc (assuming we've run out of oil too).

Just another option, not suggesting it as the way forward, but certainly makes me think about it more!

I always find it amusing that people think that Governments just love to tax us.

I just knew when we got some snow that some folk would jump up and down and say "Look, snow, all that nasty science must be wrong."

Of course it's not like the anthropogenic global warming disciples would ever use slightly warmer than normal local weather conditions as evidence to support their religious position, is it?

They don't generally, no.

"As far as I'm aware, this will never be the case, AFAIK this is a catastrophic event, like a nuclear reaction "

But are you a climate scientist?

"Of course it's not like the anthropogenic global warming disciples would ever use slightly warmer than normal local weather conditions as evidence to support their religious position, is it? "

I've never seen any remotely credible climate commentator use such things as individual hurricanes as eveidence they would only suggest it could be part of a pattern. Not like so many ****tards who are happy to go on telly or radio or into print laughing, at what I can only assume is their own stupidity, and saying how global warming cant exist look at all the snow we've had... really grips my shit that sort of thing.

They don't generally, no.

I've never seen any remotely credible climate commentator use such things as individual hurricanes as eveidence they would only suggest it could be part of a pattern.

The Earth was hotter -measured the CO2 content in polar caps is proportional to the temp and the CO2 concentration was much higher.

We could mimic the conditions and raise temps etc.

We could argue all day...

One thing I personally learned is that we should look after our planet and each other anyway regardless if global warming exists.

Bloody cold and wet though.

But are you a climate scientist?

Nope, I'm repeating the words of climate scientists who tell us it is imminent - they claim we will reach a tipping point (or a series of points of no-return-within-a-sensible time), after which the processes are totally out of our control and will spiral into hell - things like ice sheets melting which therefore prevents snow falling in that area, which means higher moisture content in the air=higher greenhouse effect, meaning no ice returns etc. Which is why they consider it so urgent that we act NOW to stop it happening, not just lessen the effects. Which makes perfect sense - once we pass a certain level we have a sequence of events such as ice caps melting, frozen methane deposits thawing and being released etc, that will have a far greater effect than all of our contributions put together. Hence nothing we do will stop it once it has passed this point.

I've been involved in a fair few discussions about these things and spend a good while reading the arguments and evidence on both sides but I dont profess to know the answers on the climate science - if I did I'd be being paid for that, rather than designing solutions to the problem 🙂

they claim we will reach a tipping point

If they do they are idiots, I'd suggest they might claim "we may reach a tipping point". Its all prediction they cannot know. Which is the language that causes the second type of idiotic climate comment that arrives on my tv or newspaper that is likely to make me want to kill someone as they do not have the necessary itntelligence to comment "even the scientists dont know exactly what will happen"... makes my ****in blood boil.

I do like the fact that people are really interested in this subject. I thank that alone is really important.

“must admit, while the arguments for and against global warming being a man made/accelerated issue are quite strong and contradictory, and both sides have their own motivations for arguing those points.”

This really shouldn’t be an argument anymore (I realise this is a simplistic statement) The fact is the 110 countries have agree on a series of basic assumptions – the key one being a 90 per cent certainty that climate change was being caused by mankind. Agreed by smarter people than me!

they claim we will reach a tipping point

If they do they are idiots, I'd suggest they might claim "we may reach a tipping point". Its all prediction they cannot know. Which is the language that causes the second type of idiotic climate comment that arrives on my tv or newspaper that is likely to make me want to kill someone as they do not have the necessary itntelligence to comment "even the scientists dont know exactly what will happen"... makes my **** blood boil.

What also angers me is that even up to last year scientists claimed that global warming science was settled. How arrogant do you have to be to claim that? Thankfully they've retracted the statement from recent documents on climate change and also because the planet is not playing ball with their predicitions and climate models. In fact satellite data shows no global temperature increases since around 2001 and over the past 2 years there's been a small decrease.

I'm also glad that people are paying attention to this but we are no where near a tipping point (if there's even going to be one) and there is still no conclusive data that man made emissions are visible in current C02 levels.

Yetiman: that sounds like [url= http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6778 ]Misleading argument number 4[/url]

If they do they are idiots, I'd suggest they might claim "we may reach a tipping point". Its all prediction they cannot know. Which is the language that causes the second type of idiotic climate comment that arrives on my tv or newspaper that is likely to make me want to kill someone as they do not have the necessary itntelligence to comment "even the scientists dont know exactly what will happen"... makes my **** blood boil.

You're reading far too much into the way I wrote it, I was not quoting directly obviously. "They claim we will reach a tipping point [if things go as per predictions, obviously]" - lets not argue semantics, as this isnt the point and the subtleties never reach the masses. The point is that according to all the current predictions we will/are soon crossing several points of no return. If this happens, it is predicted (by not so great models, but the best we have) that things will rapidly get worse in a non-recoverable (in reasonable time) manner.

While I see why you are arguing semantics, it does little but distract from the general discussion. If climatologists cannot agree on this, the general public have little chance either.

I'm also glad that people are paying attention to this but we are no where near a tipping point (if there's even going to be one) and there is still no conclusive data that man made emissions are visible in current C02 levels.

Not entirely sure where you're getting your figures from, and no the planet isn't playing ball with the predictions, because the predictions are based on relatively poor models that ignore large factors. However I dont think we are well placed to make such calls, as we are not the originators of the data or the science.

I can't be bothered to debate the science on this. As other ppeople have pointed out, there is a clear consensus but there are always going to be people saying the opposite while powerful vested interests support them.

What I find pretty amazing is that people are prepared to argue in defence of activities that increase CO2 production when most of them have contributed massively to the poor quality of life that many people experience.

Yes, if everyone started using public transport tomorrow it wouldn't make that much of an impact compared to the entire industrial output of China. However it would mean that more people could leave their houses without having to worry about being run over or getting asthma.

Personally, I'm convinced that MMCC has snow-balled from a theory of an individual, grown through genuine interest by other climatologists in papers/journals, and finally been pushed, bullied force fed to us as scientific fact in order to justify all kinds of political and commercial agendas.

We are convinced of a threat thorugh the publication of countless research projects, if not funded by an organisation with a particular point to prove in order to achieve a commercial goal, then funded by a researcher trying to make a living by publishing headline-grabbing work.

The argument of the gubberment wanting to use MMCC as an excuse to raise revenue is dubious; I do believe however that it is being used to change consumer behaviour, to reduce dependancy upon imported fossil fuel for example.

I have faith that they have foreseen a far bigger, more imminant challenge ahead of the western world than global warming; they know that there are economic and humanitarian challenges on the horizon which could make the UK a very nasty place to be indeed and that we [b]do[/b] have the ability to avoid (if managed correctly).

And if they come to fruition, none of us will be worried about the weather 🙂

A key point that many people miss is that most academics are tenured - i.e. they get paid whatever they say. So on the one hand, we have virtually all academics with a research record in the subject saying the same thing, and on the other, a powerful and well funded denial lobby with a clear conflict of interest. I know who I believe.

There's a list of the denial myths here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

and here:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html

I could go mental replying to this

Spongebob and anyone else who questions the science of Climate, Please read:

Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
The Hot Topic - Gabrielle Walker and David King
The Gaia Series of books - James Lovelock
The Party's Over - Richard Heinburg

and view the following

Synopsis of Stern Review - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/oct/30/economy.uk

The economics of climate change:

http://www.climatechangeecon.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=27

History of climate change research:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/

The late medieval warm period

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

What we learned in 2008:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html

And then come back with your opinion. Ill-informed opinion is blighting the whole climate issue - I could lecture people all day on this issue but unless they are informed its completely pointless.

Energy security goes hand in hand with climate change as the biggest thing humanity has to face. War and terrorism are just side-lines

Deny that Anthropengic Atmopheric warming is occurring all you like - you have to see that we still must cut down on fossil fuel use and move to alternative energy ASAP regardless if we are to continue out modern society in a recognisable form to what it is now. When the oil runs out, or we cant afford to buy it anymore, we cant eat, travel, heat or light ourselves.

And please learn the difference between Climate and Weather, and Global Warming and Climate Change

Ransos - good links!

I don't think the government would use global warming as an excuse to raise taxes. That would not make sense, really. The government has a vested interest in the status quo so they would really love to encourage us to consume more goods, petrol, energy and all the rest. That way, the economy grows easily, they get loads of tax revenue from fuel etc. That's why the Bush administration were in denial for so long.

And you should also know that the government doesn't keep the money it makes from taxes. So it's not greedy like you say. They have to take the tax they need to run the country, and their own personal wealth is not affected by how much tax they raise.

So the theory that governments are using CC as an excuse to get money is nonsense on two counts.

The governments have a vested interst in oil as it is the currency of the west - oil supplies reduce, the dollar goes tits up and the west goes medievil

As ever, The Daily Mash summed it up brilliantly last year with an article quoting the planet as saying "It will be fine", but the humans may suffer a bit.

Liked this:

[img] [/img]
[size=1][url= http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.142.html ]Credit: Marc Roberts, Nature[/url][/size]

A key point that many people miss is that most academics are tenured - i.e. they get paid whatever they say. So on the one hand, we have virtually all academics with a research record in the subject saying the same thing, and on the other, a powerful and well funded denial lobby with a clear conflict of interest. I know who I believe.

There's a list of the denial myths here:

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

While I'm not a skeptic, or a believer, as it were. I am fairly sure we have change afoot, I'm not sure how much, if anything, we can do about it, not that thats a reason to do nothing of course. I just refuse to be slotted nicely into a box of "its happening, its entirely our fault, we must stop everything now!".

Though most academics are indeed paid no matter what they say, they dont get project funding regardless of outcome, they get it based on a) current perceived needs (i.e. they'll get a call for proposals in the "climate change" field, and this will be reviewed by 3 or 4 other academics who will have their own opinions and b) industrial and government funding. They may get their wages paid regardless, but their work would cease if they didnt get project funding from the government and big business, both of whome steer the process. If you don't conform and show track record that follows the reviewers thoughts, they'll simply discount you for funding.

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.

Your list of myths simply reads as a list of counter arguments, such as the "there is no concensus"...

We agree some things are happening
We disagree over small details
So we agree in general.
......though there are some people who disagree, but we'll ignore them...

This really shouldn’t be an argument anymore (I realise this is a simplistic statement) The fact is the 110 countries have agree on a series of basic assumptions – the key one being a 90 per cent certainty that climate change was being caused by mankind. Agreed by smarter people than me!

I have no problem at all with limiting consumption and doing our best to limit our impact on the environment - we should do more than we do. But basing all our decisions on such flawed science as is still being used to support the case for AGW is extremely dengerous.

I have no problem at all with limiting consumption and doing our best to limit our impact on the environment - we should do more than we do. But basing all our decisions on such flawed science as is still being used to support the case for AGW is extremely dengerous.

Why is it dangerous?

AGW-aside, we still have a very finite amount of oil, so we need to move to something else very soon anyway

They may get their wages paid regardless, but their work would cease if they didnt get project funding from the government and big business, both of whome steer the process. If you don't conform and show track record that follows the reviewers thoughts, they'll simply discount you for funding.

Okay, but given that I suspect most big businesses and indeed the government, would probably prefer a position where scientists said [i]"There is nothing to worry about, keep on with the economic expansion and large scale industrialisation"[/i] then how is it that the "consensus" appears to be in the other direction?

Why is it dangerous?

aracer - Member

Why is it dangerous?

Because you make the wrong decisions if the reasoning for those decisions is flawed.

True, but what is dangerous about reducing fossil fuel use and the associated emissions?

Argh.......................................................................
I give up. In summary scientist make predictions, they suggest what could happen.

What also angers me is that even up to last year scientists claimed that global warming science was settled.

This is the ****tard comment of a moron.... scientits didnt claim that global warming was settled no scientist worth the title would. They may well have claimed that there is a general concensus that climate is happening and its being at best accelerated by us they are not wizards they cannot see into the future or predict the almost limitless variables involved in global processes, some of which we no doubt dont even know exist yet. This is why I get het up by semantics. Scientists say something and argue/debate with other scientist then a moron journalist picks up on it and low and behold puts it entirely wrong and sends it out to the genral public who dont understand enough of the language of science much less the process to realise that the journalist got it more wrong than a wrong thing on a mistake filled day.

Sience doesnt produce answers it just generates ever more questions.

True, but what is dangerous about reducing fossil fuel use and the associated emissions?

Nothing in itself. In fact that's something I'd encourage if it involves walking or riding a bike instead of using a car, having more efficient cars, or turning down the thermostat. The trouble comes when reducing the use of fossil fuels has other impacts - such as destroying a whole ecosystem in order to generate tidal energy.

Is that any different from destroying a whole ecosystem digging up oil (threats to develop reserves under the artic tundra), or a whole country (Iraq)?

Sadly, all we are doing is moving the problem elsewhere - NIMBYism on a national scale