[Closed] Global warming - see for yourself

Kramer,

That was the best I could do in the 5 minutes I had available and without access to the magazine or full papers online.

They are reports (carried by Nature) about 4 bits of research that show the same thing as the video I originally linked to - that around the world ancient ice is retreating. Some of them make a link to global warming to some degree or other but they all report on empirical evidence that ice is thinning.

7/11 for me - trying to improve it though.

Edukator- That list is very very good and an example of what we ALL need to be doing anyway whatever is happening to the planet, saving what we have for those that follow is the right thing to do. I wonder how many Global Warming zealots have done any or all of those things.

Z-11

Well, I agree with what's written in the article. The director of Greenpeace made a very minor slip up in an interview, which he corrected later in the interview. But the journalist pounced on it and tried to blow it up rather than asking for clarification.

BTW the journalist also helped create the problem by choosing a very, very selective quote. In an article that was about sea-ice Greenpeace wrote:

"we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030"

the interviewer said:

"That's just plain misleading"

Actually at that point in the interview I thought that Leipold probably thought he WAS talking about SEA-ICE and he said:

"I don't think it's misleading"

It was only then that the interviewer added:

"Hang on that includes the Greenland ice-sheet, the Greenland ice-sheet isn't melting that's propostourous."

Which was when Liepold went wrong. At that point he should have clarified that only the sea ice would be completely gone (which is bad enough) and that the Greenland ice would be reduced but not completley gone. He only did the last bit

However, this whole thing is also a demonstration of how badly we are served by the media.

If the interviewer had just asked whether, when they said:

"we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030"

Did that include Greenland? Then I'm sure Leopold would have just said no, as he did later in the interview when it was a bit clearer what he was actually being asked.

OR, if the interviewer had just quoted the very next sentence of the news story:

"As permanent ice decreases, we are looking at ice-free summers in the Arctic as early as 2030. They say you can't be too thin or too young, but this unfortunately doesn't apply to the Arctic sea ice."

It would have been bleedin' obvious that the story was about sea-ice, and Leopold wouldn't have slipped up.

So, in short, I think that the interviewer was the only one guilty of trying to mislead, he was trying to cause confrontation, not clarification.

Try watching it again and thinking about what each person knew and what each thought they were talking about at each exchange in the interview.

8.5 But I've also done some things not on the list. Also I wouldn't give everything on the list the same weight.

1.Choosing to live near your work and the services you use.
I work all over the UK & Europe - so maybe

2.Using public transport, a bike or your feet to get to work.
see above

3.Investing in insulating your house and heating system to the point
your heating consumption is below 3000 kWh/year.
already insulated - no idea how much heating we use

4.Having a solar hot water heater or heat pump.
no

5.Producing enough electricity to have a negative electricity bill.
no

6.Changing your eating habits in favour of local produce.
we've always grown our own + chickens for eggs

7.Using the train for long distance continental travel.
no

8.Reducing your general level of consumption of goods and services.
not that I can tell

9.Deciding to limit your family size if you still have the choice.
I had a vasectomy after the 4th

10. Composting your bio waste.
always had a compost heap

11. collecting rain water for toilet flushing and garden use
always used rain water for the garden

It's fair to say that none of the above answers were as a result of attempting to halt/reverse climate change

I wouldn't give everything on the list the same weight either, there's nothing rigorous about it. They are just examples of what people who take the problem seriously can do. Thanks to all who are giving their scores.

If you travelled to all the following events by car to take pictures how do you reconcile your profession with your views on CO2 emissions rightplace? I know we all have to earn a living and I don't suggest people live as hermits but that's a lot of travel. What car do you use? Could you use a more economical car? I use approximately 500 litres of vehicle fuel a year of which none is professional use so, it's my part of the squander.

# 20 Sept - Merida MTB Marathon - Ruthin - THE PICTURES
# 19 Sept - GORE BIKEWEAR Sportif - Ruthin - THE PICTURES
# 12-13 September - Cheddar Bikefest - Cheddar - THE PICTURES
# 6 Sept - The Beast - Corfe Castle - THE PICTURES
# 15-22 August - MTB TransWales - Builth Wells etc. - THE PICTURES
# 2 August - Merida MTB Marathon - Selkirk - THE PICTURES
# 1 August - GORE BIKEWEAR Sportif - Selkirk - THE PICTURES
# 5 July - Merida MTB Marathon - Llanwrtyd Wells - THE PICTURES
# 4 July - GORE BIKEWEAR Sportif - Llanwrtyd Wells - THE PICTURES
# 14 June - Marin Rough Ride - Kington - THE PICTURES
# 13 June - Kona Mashup - Glyncorrwg - THE PICTURES
# 6-7 June - The LAMM - Scotland - THE PICTURES
# 7 June - Poole Festival of Running - Poole - THE PICTURES
# 17 May - Merida MTB Marathon - Crickhowel - THE PICTURES
# 3 May - Dyfi Enduro - Machynlleth - THE PICTURES
# 18-19 April - Highlander Mountain Marathon - Scotland - THE PICTURES
# 12 April - Merida MTB Marathon - Builth Wells - THE PICTURES
# 11 April - Exposure Lights Big Night Out - Builth Wells - THE PICTURES
# 17-18 Jan - Strathpuffer - Strathpeffer - THE PICTURES

I get 9* but not sure some has any relevance and you should include flights on you list.
Also diet change should be on with a move away from meat /livestock - UN report 2006 said 18% of CO2 from livestock - this is more than ALL transport worldwide.
Even the govt are now promoting , gently, eating less meat
It is silly to claim that we must be carbon neutral to speak up - we need to use a sustainable amount of energy and reduce which I am sure most of, who care about this, do.
* let down on solar heating though I use woodburning that is wood pellets and wood from a tree surgeon so more sustainable/renewable than most methods. Will be getting solar water hopefully next year or year after. Also dont make own elctricty but use [url= http://www.ecotricity.co.uk/ ]ecotricity[/url] - so 100% renewable.

I used about (does quick sums) about 130 litres last year, but live in an old house that leaks heat to compensate.
Mind you up till about 3 years ago I could have done the smug, I don't own a car 🙂

Hard to say how much car fuel I used last year as most of it is work use but 6000 ltrs would be in the ball park

just personal use would probably be ~750ltrs

I did give my score.

We have one car - a 1.9 HDI Berlingo. My wife uses it to get to work during the week, which unfortunately is a 32 mile round trip and she needs to take a lot of stuff with her. She occasionally rides though. I use a bike for transport during the week including towing my 2 kids to school by bike-trailer.

I live in Wareham, Dorset

The 2 Ruthin events were one trip, I collected my assistant from Bournemouth and we went up together by car.
Cheddar was one trip by car.
The Beast was one trip by car but it's local - 6 miles away - I'm looking for more local jobs.
Transwales - hard to cover without a car.
Both Selkirk events were one trip, I collected my assistant from Bournemouth and we went up together by car.
Both Llanwrtyd Wells events were one trip, I collected my assistant from Bournemouth and we went up together by car.
The Kona Mashup and Rough Ride events were one trip, I collected my assistant from Bournemouth and we went up together by car.
The LAMM, I went by train to Appleby then took a lift on to the event with someone else. Mainly covered the event on foot.
The Poole Festival of Running, my assistant, from Bournemouth covered it - another local job.
The Crickhowell event. I collected my assistant from Bournemouth and we went up together by car.
The Dyfi, I collected my assistant from Bournemouth and we went up together by car.
The Highlander, I took the train to Inverness and got a lift from there. Mainly covered the event on foot.
The two Builth Wells events were one trip, I collected my assistant from Bournemouth and we went up together by car.
The Strathpuffer, I took the train to Inverness and got a lift from there.

As you say, it's my job, and although public transport might get me to the odd venue it certainly wouldn't help me get to different parts of the courses. Also, there usually are two of us traveling together.

As I've said before I don't really want to get into any "my dad's bigger than your dad type arguments" as I don't think they are helpful. I've never made any direct criticism of any individual's actions (I don't think) because we all have our own personal circumstances.

I don't mind telling you about my work travel as I guess that is a legitimate question that someone may want to think about before buying my pics, but I don't really want to go into any other specifics of what I personally do or don't do. I know there are some things I could do better, but I can assure you I do try to put my beliefs into action.

12. Avoiding air travel.

I don't fly, frightened see. 9.5/12

Of course you don't have to be carbon neutral to speak up but speaking up whilst doing nothing is plain hypocritical, especially if you have the finance to do something but use the money to pollute instead. For each believer to make decisions he/she feels comfortable with. I know shopping in Lidl is bad and driving to a ski resort worse (car sharing) but I still do them. However, my life style has not suffered in the least by reducing what my home consumes to next to nothing.

The train use demonstrates you're doing what you can rightplace. I don't expect anyone to be perfect, just coherent.

CO2 levels

warning graph content
[url=bbc says highest CO2 for thousands of years!]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8386319.stm [/url]

[img] [/img]

the bbc graph doesnt give a cause(piratical or otherwise) tho just stating the facts, ma'm

[img] [/img]

Another piece of factless invective again CPT 🙄 You claiming all science is wrong? Electricty, nucleur power, evolution, etc ???
I have asked you and the other doubters since page one for your explantion of why the vast amount of recent release of CO2 [ a known greenhouse gas] is having no effect on climate/ global warming

You sceptics have no argument only snipes.

I noticed the no agenda opposers , who are weak and powerless, have been using climate gate to aid their position

Mr Al-Sabban [Senior Economic Advisor to the Minister of Petroleum and Mineral Resources, Saudi Arabia] made clear that he expects it to derail the single biggest objective of the summit - to agree limitations on greenhouse gas emissions.

"It appears from the details of the scandal that there is no relationship whatsoever between human activities and climate change," he told BBC News.
"Climate is changing for thousands of years, but for natural and not human-induced reasons.
"So, whatever the international community does to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will have no effect on the climate's natural variability

[b]The agenda fuelled lieing scientist who are attempting to distort reality and hoodwink the ENTIRE world replied with the preposterous claim that [/b]

There is a consensus among the world's scientists that climate change is real and there's a need to confront it," said Michael Mann from Pennsylvania State University in the US, a leading palaeoclimatologist.
"Those who are advocating inaction, that don't want to see progress in Copenhagen, don't have science on their side.
"Instead they've manufactured this false controversy to distract the public and to distract policymakers, to try to thwart progress in Copenhagen."

Shocking lies will they never cease?

EIDT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8392611.stm

Junkyard, reductio ad absurdem is a fallacious argument.

Wow another snipe I am shocked.
Feel like answering the question?
Can you explain why the vast release of C02 and other pollutants is having no effect on climate ?

The problem with the global warming hypothesis is that over half the population think it is a load of BS, for various reasons, eg burned by previous catastrophe scenarios etc.

What would be better would be if we could see more emphasis on promoting an environmental ethic. The list provided by Edukator would be a good start.

If you remove the faith arguments from most religions, you get left with a code of ethical behaviour on which most people agree (eg, don't kill, steal etc). The same can be done with environmental issues.

Personally I am more likely to listen to someone who is walking the walk rather than simply talking it. I regard hypocrites as untrustworthy.

To me it can be summed up by traditional concepts of thrift - consume no more than you need, waste not, learn to separate wants from needs, actively simplify your life, etc.

There's a very good organisation in Oz [url= http://www.ata.org.au/ ](ATA)[/url] which is a fund of good pragmatic measures you can take - it's aimed more at the technical end rather than the theoretical. I've been a member for several years and found it useful. (I don't know a UK equivalent.)

PMSL!

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18234-climate-warning-system-could-be-scuppered-by-pirates.html

[i]Can you explain why the vast release of C02 and other pollutants is having no effect on climate ?[/i]

Well, again, its a little more complex than that isn't it Junkyard - you've quoted CO2 [i]and other pollutants[/i]

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are known to have risen, the planet is believed to have warmed, therefore atmospheric carbon dioxide warms the planet - cause and effect, nice and simple!

However... there are undeniably a number of variables that are not taken into account in this scenario - solar activity, volcanic activity with its associated particulates causing cooling (remember all that lovely sooty stuff that came from chimbleys when we burned coal instead of oil) and Sulphur Dioxide (massive reduction in release in the past 20 years due to acid rain problems, however SO2 is a proven negative climate forcing factor at certain levels, a positive forcing factor at other levels ) - variability in the earths orbit, algae blooms, etc - basically, its bloody complex, and nobody knows for sure all the elements that may be/are affecting the current situation - we can only look at past proxy records and try to guess what will happen in the future.

Basically, the science can only tell us what, on the face of the data, we think happened in the past, whats probably happening now, and what we think may happen in the future - nothing more concrete than that, and no real scientist would assert otherwise, these statements that the science is definite and proven are very much simplifications of a complex argument based around presumed cause and effect.

One thing that we know with absolute certainty, is that there have been changes in both global and local temperature and climate in the past - far beyond what we've seen over the past century, and that in the past the human race, the great adapter, has survived these changes - we have lived everywhere from the ice frozen shores of the arctic, to the baking heat of the sahara and everywhere in between, we moved with the retreating ice sheets to places we'd never populated before, and back again, just like most species... The current scaremongering and political lobby groups running around like chicken little screaming 'the sky is falling in' do themselves no favours.

Should we take better care of the planet we live on and the local environment we live in? of course we should - will changes in human behaviour prevent climate change? possibly to some extent, but not entirely - the climate will, sooner or later, change and make us all extinct - standing like Canute saying that we can hold back the tide is foolish and typically self important, we are but grains of sand, blowing in the wind, the earth and life itself will be here long after we're gone.

If someone wants to sell me the idea of looking after the planet for a whole variety of perfectly good reasons, I'm all for it - if they want to sell me the idea that we've got six months to save the planet from CO2, 'else we're all going to die - then they are nothing more than a snake oil vendor.

One thing that we know with absolute certainty, is that there have been changes in both global and local temperature and climate in the past - far beyond what we've seen over the past century, and that in the past the human race, the great adapter, has survived these changes - we have lived everywhere from the ice frozen shores of the arctic, to the baking heat of the sahara and everywhere in between, we moved with the retreating ice sheets to places we'd never populated before, and back again, just like most species...

One thing we also know is that temperatures are rising faster than at any time in the past. It isn't just the projected temperatures that might do us (and many other species) in, it is the speed with which things are changing. In the past natural cycles have been much slower than current changes allowing species to migrate or adapt. This time the risk of mass extinctions is much greater. The last big climate/extinction episode was the end-permian when 99% of life was wiped out. In that case the change in temperature was similar to what many say is happening now, but it took place over 10,000 years.

And of course we didn't survive that, because our species hadn't even evolved then.

Nowadays of course there are people living in the arctic/sahara etc, but not many. Not 6.7 billion. I'm not as pessimistic as some in thinking that current climate change signals the end of humanity, but it could well be the end for the vast majority.

The biggest problem we have is too many people. Why is climate change bad again?

One thing we also know is that temperatures are rising faster than at any time in the past. It isn't just the projected temperatures that are likely to do us (and many other species) in, it is the speed with which things are changing. In the past natural cycles have been much slower than current changes allowing species to migrate or adapt.

No, categorically not true, we don't [b]know[/b] this - the data presented [b]indicates[/b] it - this is not splitting hairs, it goes to the absolute crux of the argument - the rate of change we talk about largely relies on the extrapolation of proxy data onto the much shorter temperature record - there are numerous arguments over the reliability of the yamal tree data, equally there are numerous questions over the reliability of the presented thermometer records, with changes in collection methods and locations, urban heat island effects, weighting, averaging and data manipulation to the point whereby we've now lost (or deleted?) a huge chunk of the raw data - the thermometer record for large portions of the planet is exceedingly sparse, and the more recent satellite data has been calibrated against arguably flawed data sets, there are significant discrepancies between the land based temperature records versus satellite data and sea based thermometer records, all these factors go to one simple question - is the published data that we draw our conclusions on reliable? If not, then the conclusions are nothing more than worthless!

epicyclo
"Personally I am more likely to listen to someone who is walking the walk rather than simply talking it. I regard hypocrites as untrustworthy.

To me it can be summed up by traditional concepts of thrift - consume no more than you need, waste not, learn to separate wants from needs, actively simplify your life, etc."

Spot on with this, could not argee more.

i'm off for a pint.

i'll be walking to the pub and i can turn my heating / lights off, i'm practically an eco warrior.

'save the planet - have a pint'

5thElefant - Member
The biggest problem we have is too many people. Why is climate change bad again?

Actually - I think this comment really does hit the nail on the head!

[img] [/img]

Z-11

No, categorically not true, we don't know this

Well we do know it in the same way that you say we know that there were changes of climate in the past. It's all proxy measurement after all.

You can't have it both ways.

You say there were temp changes in the past. The same scientists who say that have also indicated timeframes.

z-11

is the published data that we draw our conclusions on reliable? If not, then the conclusions are nothing more than worthless!

This is also just stupid. You make it sound like there is some single set of data that everyone either agrees or disagrees on. There are loads of different measures of proxy temperature, worked on by tens of thousands (probably) of scientists, from which many macro theories are drawn. There will be some data that is out one way, some that is out another, but we have to work with what we've got and do the best we can. Your argument is very similar to "my grandad smoked all his life and it never did him any harm"

What is certain is that as methods improve the conclusions all seem to be going one way.

Z-11

Your carrying capacity graph is probably more relevant to peak oil.

The likes of Richard Heinberg would argue that K is about 2 billion.

atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are known to have risen, the planet is believed to have warmed, therefore atmospheric carbon dioxide warms the planet - cause and effect, nice and simple!

One thing I have never understood about CO2 as a greenhouse gas is why it supposedly works only in one direction like a gaseous diode.

For example if it reflects the heat rising from the Earth back into the atmosphere, surely it does likewise with the heat from the sun, so wouldn't there would be less heat penetrating the atmosphere than otherwise? Thus balancing the equation.

One thing I think we probably could all agree on. Burning hydrocarbons for energy is doing none of us any good.

Sorry, been out, also at the pub.

Well we do know it in the same way that you say we know that there were changes of climate in the past. It's all proxy measurement after all.

This is also just stupid. You make it sound like there is some single set of data that everyone either agrees or disagrees on.

No, there i however a surprisingly small set of data from shared sources, essentially the national recording organisations, all the data goes into one shared pot to produce a couple of processed "global" records, such as the GISS and CRU/Hadley records. There have been proven errors in that processed data, for example an additional warming bias caused by the millennium bug, later corrected, in GISS - let alone the presence/absence of the Medieval warm period...

There are loads of different measures of proxy temperature, worked on by tens of thousands (probably) of scientists, from which many macro theories are drawn. There will be some data that is out one way, some that is out another, but we have to work with what we've got and do the best we can

Again, the reports hinge around surprisingly few, roughly ten, that best reflect the temperature record - remove and substitute some of them and the graphs look very different, read up on Bristlecone and Yamal data compared with the Schweingruber variation. as always, lies, damn lies and cherry picked statistics.

One thing I have never understood about CO2 as a greenhouse gas is why it supposedly works only in one direction like a gaseous diode.

For example if it reflects the heat rising from the Earth back into the atmosphere, surely it does likewise with the heat from the sun, so wouldn't there would be less heat penetrating the atmosphere than otherwise? Thus balancing the equation.

You'll be equally baffled by actual greenhouses made out of glass then?

And you know when you get into a car on a sunny day and find it's warm inside... ...

Sorry epicyclo, please don't ever try to convince me that you have any understanding of science whatsoever ever again.

z-11

Can you explain this again when you're sober 😉 How does it relate to my point?

Theres a whole different level of magnitude, and subsequent proof, between fossil records proving glacial/ice age levels of temperature change, and a thousand years worth of proxy data with a level of change/error of a couple of degrees.

Simple enough RP

regards my questioning of the extent and speed of recent temperature changes, you said:

Well we do know it in the same way that you say we know that there were changes of climate in the past. It's all proxy measurement after all.

Tree ring Proxy data - questionable evidence of climate variation in the past few centuries

[img] [/img]

Glacial hanging valley - concrete proof of climate change in the last few hundred millenia:

[img] [/img]

rightplacerighttime - Member
You'll be equally baffled by actual greenhouses made out of glass then?

And you know when you get into a car on a sunny day and find it's warm inside... ...

Sorry epicyclo, please don't ever try to convince me that you have any understanding of science whatsoever ever again.

Mea culpa. I hadn't noticed that the Earth was surrounded by glass of the appropriate refractive index.

I was hoping that I would actually get some factual information rather than fatuous answers.

For example, the results of experiments measuring the reflectivity (if any) of CO2 from space compared to from Earth, or does it work like an inversion layer.

(BTW I'm not interested in convincing fundamentalists of anything. If you are sensitive to your religion being questioned, I suggest you avoid this topic.)

If you have no grasp of the actual science that you are doubting I suggest you just say nothing
Read my post above and type this in to google
[b] why is CO2 a greehouse gas[/b] it will explain it to you , let you know the tempersature the earth would be without CO2,how the atmosphere works like a greenhouse on here and other planets etc.
It is not actually possible [well unlees you want to ignore facts] to argue that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas.
As i have said above you can discuss certain parts of this but others are beyond doubt. CO2 is a greenhouse gas READ UP on it.
And again to the doubters - you just keep ignoring this question
As CO2 is a grenhouse gas and CO2 levels are increasing can you explain why this will have no effect on climate
You cannot just critiscise you must also explain and predict what will happen so please do.
Lost count of the times I have asked this and none of you doubters have even tried to answer this - why could that be?

You cannot just critiscise you must also explain and predict what will happen so please do.

It's the same kind of models that failed to work in the banking sector. Don't put any faith in them. Some unaccounted for mechanism will kick in and everything will change.

Nobody has yet explained why climate change is a bad thing.

[b]you gave NO explanation of your account did you?[/b] 🙄

Nobody has yet explained why climate change is a bad thing[/q
uote]
OMFG - try googkle and look at rising sea levels and take it from there.
Finally if you believe the same models are being used for both climate change and the global market can you show me this with particular reference to the equations used in the models?

 

I think your missing your audience there. There's a lot of inteligent arguement on here. However talking as a typical 'bloke in the pub' type of person that I am, your superior intalect is no match for the Jeremy Clarkson driving 6 litre cars, images of coal fired power stations, 50p plastic toys shipped across oceans, new electrical this new electrical that, more more more images and info shoved in the publics face.
People are doing stuff, but if it's ok to make a 6 litre car then surely it's OK to buy one. As far as climate change goes we're a nation of toe dippers. The good thing though is that I genuinely believe people aren't that stupid, and changes can be made.

Junkyard - if the system regards CO2 as a climate change [b]driver[/b] was that simple, then you would expect there to have been a subsequent warming throughout the period since the industrial revolution, rather than a sudden hike in the temperature record in the past 30 years.

In fact, we saw a pretty clear cooling through the post war period.

Now, there may be alternative explanations, such as increased particulates, cooling effect of SO2, solar activity - the problem is we don't know for sure which of these factors came into play, which sort of undermines the theory that its a simple cause and effect equation - in just the same way as we cannot know for sure why over the past decade there has not been a significant warming trend despite increased CO2, its probable that this is down to variations in la nina/el nino, but again we don't know for sure, and theres at least some question that validity of this from preeminent scientists in the released CRU emails:

"[i]The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't[/i]"

[i] is there something going
on here w/ the energy & radiation budget which is inconsistent with the modes of
internal variability that leads to similar temporary cooling periods within the models.
I'm not sure that this has been addressed[/i]

source, and perhaps more importantly, context: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt

Now, that says to me that perhaps the science really is not as settled as we have been told, and I view the discussions revealed as going on here as very healthy, It actually reinforces my faith in the science that is going on within CRU and the other organisations, however unfortunately this is not reflected in the public utterances, and the attitude towards release of raw data - in essence, what I'm seeing is a discussion along the lines of "well, we don't actually understand everything, but we can work on that, in the meantime we have to present a united front against the sceptics" - I regard that as politics rather than science.

Dont get me wrong, I really, honestly, don't dismiss the fact that we have been subject to a level of warming recently, however I honestly question the scientific basis of the allegations that its unprecedented, and I also question the validity of the scientific theory that it is [i]primarily[/i] anthropogenically caused through CO2 levels - As someone from a scientific background, I'd prefer to see scientists saying "well, we don't know for sure, however this is our working hypothesis" - I'd respect them a lot more for that,and I think that the public on the whole would be behind them more if they were honest and said that.

We've seen a lot of that over the last couple of decades in the UK, scientists coming out with quasi-political statements on issues like variant CJD and MMR, saying that something is proven, when a scientist left to their own devices is generally more couched in phrases like "we have no evidence that there is a risk"

Scientists are often their own worst enemies - organisations like Greenpeace their second worst, as I haven't seen any climate scientists producing statements like "lock the planet into catastrophic, irreversible climate change" or "our world is hotter than it has been in two thousand years" - let alone the rhetoric of politicians like "Fifty days to save the world" (copyright Gordon Brown!).

The point of science, is that its supposed to be beyond politics, black and white statements of fact - the released CRU mails don't reflect that ethos, and to me thats really concerning. When people are then going on to expand that science to call for billions to be spent on drastically reducing CO2 emissions to prevent climate change, rather than spending it on mitigating the upcoming effects of climate change that instead proves to be entirely natural and unavoidable, then they'd better have a pretty cast iron case, otherwise we're ****ed.

One thing I have never understood about CO2 as a greenhouse gas is why it supposedly works only in one direction like a gaseous diode.

For example if it reflects the heat rising from the Earth back into the atmosphere, surely it does likewise with the heat from the sun, so wouldn't there would be less heat penetrating the atmosphere than otherwise? Thus balancing the equation.

I think the theory is that CO2 is largely transparent to visible light, but absorbs infra-red.

So, light arriving from the sun goes straight through it and warms the earth's surface. The warm surface radiates heat (i.e. infra-red radiation, the old black-body radiation thing). If there's more CO2 in the atmosphere then more of it gets absorbed, warming the air, rather than being radiated out into space.

On the other hand, I imagine the warmer CO2 at the upper levels of the atmosphere will now radiate more heat out into space itself. Could all get quite complicated quite quickly.