[Closed] It's global cooling, not warming!

Go junkyard go! More power to your organ!

In Fact:

1. Holgate (2007): This study examines nine long and almost continuous sea-level
records to obtain SLR estimates for the period 1904–2003. The rate of SLR was
found to be larger in the first half of the 20th century (2.03 +/? 0.34 mm/yr
1904–1953) than in the second half of the century (1.45 +/? 0.34 mm/yr
1954–2003). According to Holgate, the highest decadal rate of rise occurred in
the decade centered on 1980 (5.31 mm/yr) while the lowest rate of rise occurred
in the decade centered on 1964 (?1.49 mm/yr).
2. Wunsch et al (2007): This comprehensive study obtains regional estimates of
sea level trends using over 100 million data points generated by a 23-layer
general circulation model with a 1° horizontal resolution. The general circulation
model uses many different types of data including salinity, sea surface
temperature, satellite altimetry and Argo float profiles over a period 1993–2004.
The study finds large regional variability, governed by thermal, salinity and mass
redistribution contribution. Based on a careful analysis of such a large data base,
the authors obtain a global mean value of SLR as 1.6 mm/yr which is about 60%
of the pure altimetric estimate of 2.8 mm/yr, as mentioned earlier. The authors
also identify several uncertainties and regional variations in the altimetric data
and conclude that “it remains possible that the database is insufficient to
compute sea level trends with the accuracy necessary to discuss the impact of
global warming—as disappointing as this conclusion may be”
3. Jevrejeva et al (2008): In this study the authors examine the global sea level
acceleration in the context of recent satellite data (TOPEX/Poseidon) and conclude
that present sea level acceleration (~0.01mm/yr2) began over 200 years ago. The
authors suggest that if this sea level acceleration continues, then a value of 34 cm
for the total SLR by the end the 21st century would be expected. The authors
further suggest faster sea level rise than IPCC estimates due to thermal inertia of
oceans and higher melt rates from Greenland Ice Sheets.
4. Wopplemann et al (2008): This study examines one of the world’s longest tide
gauge records, at Brest (France), and concludes that the Brest tide gauge is stable
over the period 1889–2007. These authors further conclude that the sea level rise
at Brest has been at a constant rate for over 100 years and as such the rise does not
appear to be influenced by rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 of the last fifty years.

Of course, the science is settled!

I guess you can quote from Energy and Environment if you can't find a proper journal.

I prefer the Daily Mash myself 🙂

Well, of course - if the collaborators at nature refuse to allow anyone to publish anything that disagrees with their own views, they're gonna have to find an alternative journal aren't they 😉

If the paper wasn't such dog-w@nk it would be accepted elsewhere, even when you take account of the global conspiracy.

dog-w@nk

Wow, thats a phrase you don't hear very often.

Zulu - are you now agreeing the sea level is rising or not? You seemed to be denying it earlier or at least quoted people who denied it.

Sorry, first phrase that came to mind 😉

You [b]seemed[/b] to be denying it earlier or [i][b]at least [/b]quoted people who denied it.
[/i]

What's that TJ - are you tripping over your own straw man?

Sorry, first phrase that came to mind

No no, wasn't critisising, was just wondering how you came up with such uniqueness?

It was actually a phrase that I learnt from my bank manager whilst at uni! I was begging for money as usual and, whilst I was doing chemistry he was reasonably happy to sort out an overdraft assuming I'd get a job, eventually. However, he then went into a tirade about 'certain' degree courses, which he described using that colourful phrase, and how it would make them less likely to loan money.

That was 20 years ago so I must have logged it in the memory banks as a potentially useful phrase.

Zulu - you quote people who deny sea levels are rising then you quote people who say they are. Which do you believe? its a really simple question.

I'm not the one playing debating tricks or setting up straw men.

TJ - i've reached the opinion that people like Epicyclo, Hainey, and Mr 11 are actually plants - sent here to encourage a greater understanding of science... i for one am finding the process very educational.

thanks guys!

Skepticism is essential for good science, unless it tips over into denial that is.

".......individual actions are based upon the beliefs of the person acting and if the beliefs are unsupported by evidence then such beliefs can lead to destructive actions........."

I agree with that ... I think?

I said:

It is not just as simple as a few millimeters of average rise that we have to worry about. In some places there is a much bigger change to the tidal range, so high tides are much higher (like tens of cm) higher than they have been. Combined with increased storms due to more frequent El Nino years this is having devastating effects in areas like Bangladesh.

and Z11 said:

Peer reviewed source please! There's no proven causal link between weather and extreme climate events

Anyway, we all know that sea levels ARE rising (don't we Z11?), and we all know that there have been more El Nino years than la Nina years lately (don't we Z11?) And higher sea levels + more storms = more damage. So I'm not really sure what you are asking for? I've simply stated a few FACTS (nothing to do with models or projections - actual observed events).

A better definition is

Scientific skepticism uses critical thinking and inductive reasoning while attempting to oppose claims made which lack suitable evidential basis

It would be rude not to get to 1000 now 🙂

hope that helped!

Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental!

😆

don't let this thread die - it deserves 1000 posts purely for being the most ridiculous argument ever seen on here.
surely you can find a few more bits of bobbins to post?

[i]When 100 say white and 10 say black and the 100 have rigorous reliable and valid research and the ten do not its easy to see where the truth lies.[/i]

But it isn't. Science advances in various ways but it's often the guy/girl that makes a pataphysical intellectual leap that takes science forward. Scientific "truth" is simply the theory that is the best fit hypothesis of those currently available.

Wishing the polluters suffer the consequences of their actions is not allowed on this forum and insulting my adversaries intelligence would reveal a lack of it bei mir so I'm stuck with supporting the hypothesis I see as best fit. You never know, of all the people that follow this thread a few may decide to do something, with what was written here as one of the factors influencing their choice.

Thats what I'm hoping.

Would hate to think that the many hours (!) I've put into this thread were a complete waste of time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8484385.stm

Why withhold information?

raw data is at best totally meaningless, at worst it can be misleading.

and handing over raw data to people with an agenda would be careless - we can all hazard a guess at how climatesceptic.com would 'process' the data...

raw data is at best totally meaningless, at worst it can be misleading.

I'm glad we agree!

I presume you'd also agree that adjusted raw data is totally meaningless unless all adjustments are recorded, justified and explained - otherwise its impossible to repeat the process.

and handing over raw data to people with an agenda would be careless

You mean people like Phil Jones and the CRU? 😆

😆

After almost 1000 posts, I remain unconvinced that our accelerated output of CO2 has had any significant impact on the weather, climate, whatever you want to call it.

There is no actual scientific proof of this, merely speculation.

I do not advocate wasteful behaviour however!

I maintain that we should all conserve natural resources where possible as fuel will not last forever, but I detest the thought police who tell us that recklessly wasting fossil fuels will kill the planet. This is a lie designed to relieve us of money, but I doubly detest the selfish numbskulls who barrel round in huge engined vehicles just to massage their inflated egos. Then add all the other people who pointlessly waste energy.

We really need to cut out this stupid behaviour. I'm talking about turning the heating down and switching it off earlier, putting on extra clothes. Insulating and draught proofing our homes to the highest standards. Walking/cycling more often. Driving sedately and at reduced speeds, deferring journeys until several needs arise to travel to one place. Considering commuting distances when changing jobs. Taking a short shower and not a bath. Not washing everyday (if you have been sedentary and haven't been sweating). Reducing the washing and ironing by wearing clothes more than once. Filling the kettle with just the water you require, not full to the brim every time. Cutting down on foreign travel. Buying products that won't end up as landfill in a short period of time, but spending more on tangible high quality products and buying much less often. Buying more foods that are locally produced and avoiding excessive packaging etc etc....

There are loads if things we can all do which collectively would add up to a big reduction in consumption, but it all takes effort and consideration and the selfish people will greedily consume because they arrogantly feel they are above considering anyone else! It takes a lot of self control not to cave in to the slick marleting campaigns. You just have to ask yourself, "do I really need this new item". The answer is most often no. It's about self-discipline, self-control.

Forget this "save the planet" nonsense, it's our existence that we need to worry about as the planet will still be here long after we wipe ourselves out.

The main issue is population control. We need to arrest the increase in the world's population immediately. If left unchecked, we'll be so overpopulated that we'll eventually run out of food. If one thing is going to accelerate the consumption of precious resources, it's going to be having lots more people around to do this! We need a world population growth summit.

There is no actual scientific proof of this, merely speculation.

but I detest the thought police who tell us that recklessly wasting fossil fuels will kill the planet. This is a lie designed to relieve us of money

Genuinely what would convince you or Hainey or Z-11 can you all answer I am intrigued what would be enough to persuade - one answer each helps us get to 1000

It is more than speculation though there is plenty of data on one side and a reasonable explantion versus denial

I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you.

Genuinely what would convince you

A time machine, because in our lifetime we won't find out.

... and while we're at it.

Man landing on the moon? WTF is all that about??? I'd like to see some evidence of that too 😉

edit,sorry

and I will cherish you insulting the qualified scientist on here for their inabilty to understand science whilst refusing to give your qualification on the subject..it is up there with you posting a graph from a paper that disagreed with your interpretation of it.
However my favourite is you challenging me to use special maths to show that the 11 years between 1998 - 2008 were not the last ten years. Spectacular
yes and those doctors , cancer and smoking
I mean we did have cancer before we smoked didn't we ...it is just a natural cycle and them seeing a pattern where there is none. I mean can you prove smoking causes cancer well can YOU!

ahwiles said:

and handing over raw data to people with an agenda would be careless - we can all hazard a guess at how climatesceptic.com would 'process' the data...

Very true, except that, there never was any destroyed data. It doesn't take much searching to find out that all of the "lost" data was in fact still available from the original sources. It was only the CRU paper copies of the data that was thrown out.

I can totally understand why the CRU [b]experts[/b] wouldn't want to hand over their work to the likes of hainey for interpretation.

But wasn't it convenient that this whole thing blew up just before Copenhagen? At any other time it would have been a storm in a tea-cup and the story would have been corrected before it got out of hand, but when half the world's media were on the look out for a "climategate" type story it was a gift for them. A brilliant (and I mean that in a Dr Moriarty type way) bit of propaganda by someone, who of course remains unknown. (why isn't anyone looking into who actually leaked all that stuff?)

I'm fully expecting similar "revelations" before the next climate conference.

Cancer and smoking is actually a [i]really[/i] interesting parallel Junkyard, because I've done some of the research 🙂

First, there was a trend identified within the population, with higher cancer amongst smokers.

this theory was explored through use of an animal model, that allowed them to remove all variables -randomisation of groups, varying dose levels, control groups, multiple species - scientifically recorded data, GLP regulations, annotation of data, signatures, internal and external Quality Assurance, data and facilities audits, etc. etc.

The key factor is this - [b]after the removal of all variables[/b], in a multi level dose study with control groups - cigarette smoke causes higher cancer rates for selected cancer types. The animal research model, [b]without variables[/b], reflected the real world human results.

Thats how you get around all the problems with correlation and causality - you test it, in a controlled fashion, with a scientific control group [b]removing all variables[/b]

Do you see the problem here with your comparison!

Do you get the ****ing idea yet? do you get where your interpretation of how science works has failed?

Do you understand how poor your understanding of how we do climate research is?

A computer model trying to recreate and add in all variables in a climate system we do not fully understand, is not the same as a model removing all variables and running with a known, randomised control group.

If I suggested that the next drug that came on the market could be tested on a computer model of the human system (a system so complex that we really, really don't understand how everything works) without any final validation against animal models and finally healthy human volunteers, and I told you that it the model was completely reliable, and the drug wouldn't give you cancer (a disease so complex that we really. really don't understand how everything works) - would you accept my "science" as reliable or not!

Do you see the problem here with your comparison!

I see the problem.

The problem is that we don't have several Earths that we can monitor as we eliminate various unknowns (maybe trees on one, plankton on another, geological activity on another etc.) to finally get a definitive answer re' CO2.

Of course this might also take a bit more time as well as the cycle times of some processes on earth, such as flushing CO2 from the deep oceans, takes around 800 years, which I believe is longer than the lifecycle of a rat?

Here's an interesting question for you. How many fewer people would have died of lung cancer if the authorities had decided to start acting on smoking when the levels of confidence re' cancer were only 95% rather than virtually certainty?

Junkyard, I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce.

Yes it is the lizard people what done it as governments stuggle to come up with reasons to tax us - I mean it is not for schools, health, roads, army, social services, police prison is it - thanks for clearing that one up.

No, it's not! Most is wasted on people who sit on their backsides claiming every benefit available from the stupidly soft benefit system we operate in this country. And then there are MP's! Civil servants bonuses etc etc etc.

Then there is the jaw dropping waste and inefficiency on government projects.

What about the £4Bn that Gordon has pledged to aid developing countries to adopt green practices? That was a dumb move seeing as we have an enourmous "out of control" public deficit.

1K 🙂

Damn it.

Please can this all stop now? Think of the planet.

Hainey I see you have given up on any point whatsoever and are going into ever more puerile insults. What a lovely picture you are painting of yourself on here.

Ratty - I now see why Ernie call you this BTW. You missed my point entirely re cancer - a repetition of a point I made pages ago. It is that I can just deny your science/data completely no matter what you say/do. I mean did you really do experiments on animals and then think that it would be the same as humans? Well animals are not human are they - can’t deny that can you. Can’t deny that we had cancer before smoking can you? Cannot deny that non smokers get lung cancer can you ...like I said just a natural cycle. Well prove it etc It is to show that your and Hainey's arguments can be used equally "well" against any point, argumnent, model. No matter what you say I will be able to deny it with your arguments. Claearly the science behind the point is robust that is my point as you ably demonstrated.

You are correct re methodology that it would be more robust/rigorous to isolate variables etc and do actual experiments/observations. However with only one world that is impossible to do. What do you suggest we do when we try and predict the future from current trends? It is not like we used astrology ,runes or sheep entrails to make the predictions is it.

We reached 1000 - I bid you farewell and Happy trails

It is not like we used astrology ,runes or sheep entrails to make the predictions is it.

are you sure? That could be why they are withholding the data. We'll never know!

hainey,

what data is being withheld? and by whom?

Well animals are not human are they - can’t deny that can you.

Indeed, its a model! The differing species models replicates the human body in a fundamentally similar manner that you extrapolate across to humans, and search for the similarity in the result - nobody claims its identical, and nobody claims that they have definitive proof, they recognise a level of uncertainty - this is often missing from the claims of the pro AGW "scientists"

Can’t deny that we had cancer before smoking can you? Cannot deny that non smokers get lung cancer can you ...like I said just a natural cycle.

No, as you use a single known, quantifiable and evidenced variable - you can quantify the difference between the control group with its unknown and poorly understood natural cycles, and the dose groups with the introduction of the variable - this is how you remove the problem of correlation and causality.

you cannot do this with the Earth, therefore you cannot claim the same level of certainty in your results - due to the fact that there are an unknown number of unquantifiable variables you cannot claim any level of certainty, and therefore it is very, very unreliable to make any form of extrapolation, let alone predict forward with any level of reliability.

The comparison you are making with climate research is that you look ONLY at the cancer data, ie. before and after smoking became commonplace, and look for trends in that data showing that smoking causes cancer - yes, it does, but a whole variety of other things are causing various increases in assorted cancer levels during the same period of time - your method of data analysis would have never identified that asbestosis causes mesothelioma, which was happening at the same time, but with your method of data analysis would have been grouped in with the smoking/passive smoking effects.
Smoking is one of the known increased risk factors in mesothelioma, but the causation is down mainly to the asbestos

only looking at trends within the cancer data would have showed correlation, not causation.

Trouble with you Z11, is you only have one tool in your toolbox, and it's a hammer.

You seem to think that because you only understand one type of procedure for tackling one type of problem, that that is the only way to do it.

Which is fine, until you come across a problem that can't be solved that way.

Then there are 2 possible responses.

Your response, which is to say that nothing can be done.

And my (well not just mine, mine and the IPCCs) response, which is to ask what is the most plausible way to solve it, then proceed down that route.

You've chosen your response.

I've chosen my response.

Your response involves doing [b]nothing[/b]. In which case, why don't you do that and stop trying to undermine the efforts of others who are trying to do [b]something[/b]. No scientist in climate science pretends to have all the answers. They are all trying to improve their understanding and make more accurate predictions. You make no positive suggestions as to how this might practicably be done, only negative comments.

Given that we do have only the one world available to us, maybe you'd like to make some practical suggestions as to how we should go about predicting [b]any[/b] future climate changes.

No, I said quite clearly that the immediate response should be go go back and QA then reanalyse the data, and follow a data led approach without forming preconceptions on where it should lead you.

This quite clearly is not the current procedure being applied by [b]either[/b] side of the debate, which is form a hypothesis, and then find the data to back it up.

I think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably worthless.

I think the biggest problem with your approach RPRT, is that you fall into the trap of "it doesn't matter what we do, as long as we do [b]something[/b]" - which at best is mere gesture politics, and at worst detracts from things that are real, tangible know, proven and immediate problems, as demonstrated with the raiding of the DFID budget, and malaria/famine/vitamin deficiency blindness

We got to 1000. Can we stop now?

Trouble with you Z11, is you only have one tool in your toolbox

And i would suggest that you only have a pair of ear-defenders.

Like with all scientific studies it is essential to know when logic is required and to seek logical clarity. It is also essential to remain emotionally detached when analysing the data. Quickly commiting to simple trends and conclusions can be more damaging than searching for flaws in arguments.

Hainey is anyone going to listen to you on logic and science are you really that misguided?. I really did laugh out loud at that.

remain emotionally detached when analysing the data

like you were with this you mean?

. An organisation [Noble prize winning IPCC] which lets be honest makes all the data up themselves, declares themselves as the world experts, then tells the world that they are correct

Like with all scientific studies it is essential to know when logic is required and to seek logical clarity.

Your profundity knows no bounds.

I thought you'd left?

Junkyard i am referring to your quite frightening ability to not see anything outside the following equation running around your head

Man Made CO2 = Climate Change.

Whether you believe it or not, its just not that simple i'm afraid.

Your profundity knows no bounds.

Why thank you! 😉

Z11 said,

I think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably worthless.

Just to be absolutely clear - you are saying that it is not worth trying to understand and predict changes in the climate?

sorry rprt - I should have worded that better

"I think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably impossible, and therefore any predictions are probably no better than flipping a coin"

Just to be absolutely clear - you are saying that it is not worth trying to understand and predict changes in the climate?

No more useful than trying to make a long term weather prediction! (nb. I realise that weather is not climate)

Z11 said:

think in an area as complex as climate modeling, predictions with any form of statistically significant reliability are probably impossible, and therefore any predictions are probably no better than flipping a coin

Just to be absolutely clear - you are saying that that is likely to be the case until the end of time?

No RPRT, I'd never say never.

However to model climate reliably, we'd need to produce a computer model with the complexity and processing power to remove all variables, to do that we'd have to be able to crack chaos theory - so mathematically, your model would have to have infinite processing power and/or infinite time to produce a result! 😆

Or of course you could just see if the model you produced could be used to predict actual events?

A glimmer of hope to help us along our way...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8485669.stm

don't be silly rprt, predicting future events?! - that's impossible, you're talking witchcraft! it's against god!

Mr11 - modern climate models are not claiming to be able to predict how much rain will fall over rotherham on july 28th 2146.

they are attempting to predict how/if rainfall patterns (etc.) might be altered by a warming world.

putting aside the Anthropogenic argument for a moment, there is lots and lots of evidence to suggest the world is warming, it would be helpfull if we had some idea as to how that might affect us.

for example; it might be a good idea for Australia to invest in more drought mitigation projects, the best long term predictions aren't looking too rosy.

or hang on, it turns out they can cancel those Damns they're building, some bloke on the internet doesn't think computer models are all that reliable, he thinks they might just as well spend all their money on wellies and raincoats...

X

Zulu-Eleven - Member

No, I said quite clearly that the immediate response should be go go back and QA then reanalyse the data, and follow a data led approach without forming preconceptions on where it should lead you.

which is exactly how the realisation that climate change is occurring happened. People looked at the data and found a phenomenon
Really - for someone who is supposed to be a scientist you do post the most utter tripe.

and animal studies are known to be a limited way of establishing what happens in a human population and even worse some believe that that are effectively useless.

Perhaps you should

follow a data led approach without forming preconceptions

Mr Kettle - the pot just called you black.

[img] [/img]

What we need is a fusion thread, then I can be the skeptic and rubbish hainey's links.

Right, here's my take.

1) I don't trust this government not to put growth ahead of dealing with climate change.

2) Petrol and diesel (and ergo transport) is far too expensive because it is subject to a great deal of tax.

3) The electricity generating capacity of this country won't stretch to charging electric powered vehicles.

4) This government is too addicted to the receipts from fuel tax to invest in viably cheap public transport. This is part of the reason why public transport fares are allowed to increase by an amount beyond the rate of inflation.

5) I don't think the above is fair. If public transport was cheap enough I'd get rid of my car in a second.

6) Most of the people reading this own a bike built out of aluminium manufactured on the other side of the world.

We're all hypocrites, willingly or unwillingly.

TJ said:

When 100 say white and 10 say black and the 100 have rigorous reliable and valid research and the ten do not its easy to see where the truth lies

and animal studies are known to be a limited way of establishing what happens in a human population and [b]even worse some believe that that are effectively useless.[/b]

Science FAIL - pot vs kettle racial harassment claim thrown out of court...

Replies:
1 Trust a government?

2 Petrol and diesel are far to cheap. That's the problem.

3 Insulate buildings to a reasonable standard and we will have an electricity surplus.

4 Doubling fuel tax would not halve revenue as it would not halve consumption, demand is not that elastic. Petrol consumtion dropped only 15% when the price topped €1.50/l

5 I use public transport when possible, that means for over half the kms I travel that aren't on a bike, I'd like to be able to use public transport more.

6 The energy cost of producing that bike and getting it to you is tiny compared with what is used to manufacture a car. You can make everbody on the planet a bicycle using sustainable resources.

Being hypocritical involves saying one thing and doing another. There is nothing hypocritical about supporting sustainable development and buying a bicycle made in Taiwan as they are compatible.

2) Petrol and diesel (and ergo transport) is far too expensive because it is subject to a great deal of tax.

Actually compared to average incomes its cheaper now than at any time since the oil crises of the 70s - part of the issue is transport is too cheap hence people use a lot of energy transporting themselves and goods far more than needed

Zulu - oooooooooooooooooh the ironing

1) What are they there for then?

2) Fine. Give me an alternative. What am I supposed to do?

3) Partly true. What would have helped was a comprehensive review of electricity generation back in the 1990s.

4) The treasury netted £30bn a year in fuel duty in 2002. In 2008 is was £50bn. Supply and demand is inelastic, a fact the government exploits cynically.

5) Agreed.

6) Surely then it's better to keep an older car on the road and not encourage consumers to buy a new car every few years? The CO2 generated in producing a new car outweighs the CO2 emitted from an older car.

You're right about being sustainable, but processing Bauxite and welding aluminium is an environmentally unfriendly business. I love biking hence I'm prepared to make this choice, but then I keep my car usage to a minimum and avoid travelling by air unless absolutely necessary. I wonder how many posters here are aware of that.

@TandemJeremy

1993 - price per litre of petrol was £0.33. In 2010 it's £1.11

Has household income trebled?

It takes about 80 000kms worth of fuel to make a car and I don't know how much to recycle it. So if you do a low mileage (less than 10 000km a year) you are indeed wise to keep your car as long as possible as you'll never save the fuel used to build the new one.

Now compare with early 1982 TJ.

@Edukator

Thank you.

Z11, Before we go off in another direction again, how about you respond to my last post?

PJM1974, not having a go at you (honest) as you seem to have a relatively sound attitude, but I want to pick up on something you said to illustrate a point. You said

I keep my car usage to a minimum and avoid travelling by air unless absolutely necessary.

And the point is, it's very interesting how different people define "absolutely necessary" One of the problems with addressing climate change is that even people who claim to understand the argument don't actually do anything about it, or think that doing something in one part of their life frees them of responsibility in another.

And BTW I'm not hoping to start a "what have you done" type discussion, just to cause pause for thought.

Its not just the cost of the fuel - its the total cost of motoring. And I can't be bothered checking my facts - I thought this was the thread for baseless assertions?

I'm not going to live as a hermit in a cave and scavenge which would eliminate all but "absolutely necessary" consumption. A reasonable goal is a sustainable level of energy/esource consumption. You can do that and still live very well. It's striking a balance between the selfish "what I do won't make a jot of difference" and the community spirited "if everyone does what I do there won't be a problem".

[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8486440.stm ]climate change science 'sound' according to chief UK scientist[/url]

Of course he does, he's on the take from the Government 😉

And in the wise words of Junkyards et al, he's not exactly qualified in cllimatology!!

you cannot pluralise my log in name and say et al - et al means you have cited the study before and it is has more than one author - your science creditentials are superb.
As a qualified and respected scientist he is in a good position to speak about the soundness/legitiamacy/robustness of the science, which he did, he is not publishing his own research on the area is he? Subtle difference lost on you.
Also in your previous dig at me when you said I had an

abillity not to

As a qualified and respected scientist he is in a good position

😆

You contradict yourself so much i don't think you know where you stand. What about all the other scientists out there who are qualified and respected but disagree with climate change theories that you were so quick to dismiss?

Petty digs? I'm sorry, I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter. 😉

Oh, and et al mean and others. 🙄