Very surprised how much ignorance/trolling is going on here. Thought my fellow forumites were more enlightened than TZF etc.

Global warming is happening, it is (to a large extent) manmade. It will knack up large areas in the equatorial region and cause much more volatile weather patterns in other areas.
Deforestation, overpopulation and energy food scarcity are going to give us a very interesting century!

Tazzymtb,

Frankly, I have a lot more respect for that POV than for your previously presented one.

In some ways I actually agree with you. I guess (hope anyway) that climate change isn't going to present its most devastating consequences in my lifetime, and maybe it would be nice to make hay while the sun shines (no pun intended). But I have kids…

CHB – To be enlightened you need to take a look at the wider picture and look at the evidence from both sides. You should try it some time…

TZF care to come up with some reason why you think I might not have looked at evidence from both sides.
I have seen "evidence" from those nice people in ill fitting suits that knock on my door occaisonally giving out gods information leaflets. Despite their "evidence" I still remain unconvinced by creationism.

Ok thats an extreme illustration, but I have yet to see in this thread or elsewhere any robust evidence to counter my conclusion that global warming is largely man made. If you have any evidence to support your view please post it.

Can you show me definitive proof that the climate is changing in a way that it hasn't done before and that any change is man-made? If you can, I think you might win a prize and go down in history.

rightplacerightime- that's ok I enjoy winding folks up 😀

Trolling Zoo Fighter – Member
CHB – To be enlightened you need to take a look at the wider picture and look at the evidence from both sides. You should try it some time…

present the evidence then not just glib lines like this.

TZF we did the science cant offer proof debate earlier it is still not data that supports your position though. If you have any evidence to support your view please post it.

Junkyard – what do you think my position is on anthropogenic climate change?

TZF, I suspect that the term "definitive proof" might be something you will always say is never reached. However, lots of stuff here that is compelling and credible and fits with my understanding of systems:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/

Suggest you post something to counter it, naturally make it definitive and full of proof. ❓

I'm not really seeing much (any) in the way of cold hard science in that link there CHB. Are you really basing your opinion on something like that rubbish?

Junkyard – what do you think my position is on anthropogenic climate change?

My view – Is the earth warming? Maybe, maybe not. Are we to blame? Maybe, maybe not. Can we realistically do anything about it? Not a chance in hell.

TZF,

Still waiting for you to back up your "scientists say the oil will run out in 8 years" comment.

You'll be waiting a long time then.

TZF, ok. Can you post anything even remotely as credible to the counter? When you do then we have something to talk about. Until then I shall not be feeding the Troll/Idiot (delete as applicable).

TZF,

You said that it was the "scientific consensus" and I asked you for one example of where that was reported.

But you're not prepared to give me an example?

rightplacerighttime…suggest that we ignore TZF until he posts something sensible (ie a rational argument backed up with even a little evidence).

CHB – I have done so already when I pointed out that your link was pretty pish from a scientific POV.

My standpoint on this one is that we simply do not know for definite what effect our emissions are having on the climate. I think that we should try and reduce our emissions to improve the air quality and reduce respiratory illnesses and allergies. I also think that we should reduce waste production and power consumption so that our finite resources last a bit longer.

i dont really have any inteest in your position I just want your evidence. I can make my mind up from that…isn't that what you argued we should all do?
EDIT :Excellent more thoughts ZERO DATA /Evidence …given this governments treatment of scientists/data you could probably head up a task force for them on climate change.

I decided to bow to peer pressure and started spouting whatever I felt like instead.

Wow, you said something I agree with. Conserving finite resourses makes sense.
My personal view is that its lack of resources and desertification/soil errosion that will have the really painful effect.

Personally I remain convinced of man made climate change. Your post above is not evidence. Evidence needs something a bit more thorough than saying its pish.

Just as an aside, whats your education/background? ie is it scientific/engineering? Just wondering if you are being willfully obtuse or just a bit uneducated. 😈

CHB – BSc(Hons) Environmental Science. Then a number of years editing scientific journals.

Yours?

My standpoint on this one is that we simply do not know for definite what effect our emissions are having on the climate.

Actually I agree with that statement too. We don't know whether we are **** the planet or REALLY **** the planet. ie I don't think its debateble that humans are effecting climate. I do accept that there is changing evidence about the rate at which we are doing it. However the range of data deviation suggests that even the "optimistic" levels are not going to be fun.

BSc(Hons) Environmental Science. Then a number of years editing scientific journals.

I don't believe you 🙂

Really..wow then you will have links to journals with your name on to post as evidence.
So in one link you can prove BOTH that you are not an idiot and that you have evidence.

;-P

Editor of Scientific Journals (note plural) with just an ordinary degree…

Blox 🙂

Yeah, puts my Chemistry degree to shame.

mind I did only get a II/I

Mark – as you'll know there are various types of editor… Including production editor.

Ah.. you mean admin! yes.. I see now 🙂

Or skiving and drinking coffee as I used to call it.

TZF,

Was it whilst editing a scientific journal 8 years ago that you discovered that the scientific consensus was that we only had 6 years oil left?

Bugger me, you lot are still at it? 🙄

If there is one thing I can be certain of after dealing wtih environmental issues for a large part of my career its this; If anything does happen its unlikely to be immediate and there isn't a damn thing we can do about it.

I'm off back to the fridge for more beer…chill out chaps.

No, it was during a lecture on fossil fuel depletion funnily enough.

Who was speaking ….. so we can google their ressearch ?

I see where we are going wrong, this is a religious argument.

Must not question the ayatollahs of green…

BTW I would still appreciate numerical answers to my questions where the manmade output was expressed as a % of the natural output, be it sun, volcano, or bushfire etc.

Oh, and has coal run out yet? That scientific consensus must be right soon, just like phrenology, phlogiston, etc.

epicyclo,

I've twice replied to the best of my ability with answers to your questions, but you've not replied to mine.

You said:

I suspect if all the subsidies for alternate energy were removed we'd probably see an end to global warming as an issue.

I asked:

Can you try to explain what you think we are supposed to infer from this? What mechanism do you think is in place to link subsidies for alternative energy (which subsidies are you talking about BTW?) to the issue of global warming.

TZF,

Which one?

TZF, you said

But 6yrs ago, the scientific consensus said that we only had 8yrs worth of oil left.

Can you tell us all where this was reported. It must have been reported widely after all, if it was "the scientific consensus"

Six years ago is 2003, so the critical date is 2003 plus 8 = 2011. Based on this, a Google search reveals predictions by a team from the University of Uppsala that oil supplies will peak soon after 2010 (New Scientist, 2003).

So possibly the original comment was simply confusing predictions of a peak in world oil flow with oil actually running out? Easy mistake to make.

p.s. I make no judgement on the premise of the linked article that "there is too little oil for global warming".

Remember that man that has been granted leave (using religious discrimination legislation) to take his Co. to tribunal for being made redundant? (he argues that this is because of his 'Environmental beliefs')

So for all the people who tout irrefutable science for 'man made' climate change (as is this mans beliefs), the Law has deemed it akin to religion!

It seems to me that by chasing his own agenda, he has undermined what he stands for.

I see where we are going wrong, this is a religious argument.

I think the fact it is a scientific one has been pointed out many times.