No trolling.

620 authors, 40 countries, 620 experts and governments.

man thats a lot of bribes to come up with complete drivel.

DrJ, glad you found it amusing.

Why is that your favourite? Do you have information to the contrary?

Oh come on, some graphs are useful:

Thinking something without a valid reason to think it is usually the preserve of religion

Ok, how about "It is because of a natural cycle"

Natural cycles of global warming have been proven to exist, the hypothesis of global warming due to man has not.

funded by the state

yes, totally unbiased!!

Where do you think academias money comes from?

Let me let you into a little secret about what happens in the scientifitic community

Professor Bob goes to university
Professor Bob becomes an expert in his field
Professor Bob gets funding from an establishment for his research
Professor Bob is happy.
Professor Bob finishes his research and its not the answer the establishment wanted to hear.
Professor Bob is asked to choose between his scientific morals and his money
Professor Bob wants money
Science loses.

To be honest i haven't really looked at the graph and what it all means, i tried but the legend took the focus away from the data and i couldnt concentrate. However, from what i see they seem to be speculating a temperature rise of about 5deg by 2100.

You know what, they could be right, there could be a rise in temperature. Of the severity i think they are being a little knee-jerk. Maybe a degree or 2

But is this down to man? I don't think so. I think its part of a natural cycle.

My opinion on that graph,

Well i think the legend is too large and the size of the font takes the focus away from the graph itself. Colour choice is ok, but yellow is never a good one, i would have mixed it up with maybe a variance in full lines and dashed lines. I think the title font is too large, and i prefer arial narrow font myself.

As far of the data goes, well its anyones guess, you have to speculate to accumulate!

Actually, one good thing to google is a historical graph of Temperature Versus CO2. It quite happily shows that increases in CO2 lag temperature increase and are not the cause. Something which has been known for a long time but merrily swept under the carpet.

sorry

http://www.google.co.uk

http://www.google.co.uk

You can't relate a 0.6degC to man, thats what i am saying. Its impossible to say that when 400,000 years of history tells a different story.

I am interested to hear about your thermal lag theory!!!!

Junkyard,

You are missing the point.

To put it simply.

IPCC are saying that prior to the last century it had nothing to do with man and we saw huge changes on multiple occasions to the climate.

They are saying that in the last century it has been down to man, with no contribution from natural sources (not sure why nature stopped having an effect 100 years ago but i am sure they can answer that one) and since man has been involved temperatures have risen 0.6degC (or 0.72degC according to some sources) Anyway, in the grand scheme of things – not a lot.

I can not answer your question regaring global storage of carbon dioxide as i don't know the answer. I don't know what the earths potential to store carbon actually is. Do you? I have already stated that deforestation is not a good thing. I completly oppose it. However, it is estimated that there are now more trees in the world than there ever have been, the problem is that they are all small saplings so in the short term don't have the potential of larger trees so we need to wait until they have matured.

I think contrary to what you say you are choosing to conclude what you want to read from the IPCC.

They have stated that extreme climate change up until a century ago was down to natural phenomenom. Since the industrial revolution it is humans fault with no influence of natural phenomenon? Talk about choosing an argument to suit your own agenda.

I think rightplaceright time highlighted a great point:

With such dramatic population increase
With such a huge increase in demand on natural resources
With such a huge increase in car ownership and hence CO2 output
and all the knock on effects of this, we have seen a temperature increase of….wait for it 0.6degC.

Oh.

Thats it?

You mean that billions more people, billions more gases, billions more cars has had LESS of an effect than natural causes dating back hundreds of thousands of years?

Well the evidence speaks for itself!

I pretty much agree with what coffeeking says, whether global warming is man made or not, it does not give us the freedom to pilige (spl) the earths resources and treat it like a uni student treats a war memorial. Anything we can do to keep our planet nice and pretty for generations to come is a good thing. However, the money being grabbed from us in the name of green taxes should be better spent on curing disease, famine, better technology etc.

If you are approaching your side of the debate from a "purely man is responsible for global warming" without any consideration from what we already KNOW – not hypothesis then you make think its obvious.

If you look at the IPCCs figures, they talk about global fluctuations in temperature of extremes of +/-5 degC, they discuss CO2 levels once in our atmosphere 18 times what they are now. Sea level rises of over 3m. And these are not one offs, this has happened multiple times in a cyclic fashion for the last 400,000+ years.

Now, in the last century, temperatures have risen by 0.6degC, CO2 levels have risen by 30% and the sea levels have risen by 10cm. – Not a good trend in anyones book, but no where near anything as extreme as seen before.

So, the IPCC put all the extreme global warming and cooling cycles down to natural phenomenon before the industrial revolution, and are now putting the last relatively minor fluctuations down to man? Doesn't add up.

DrJ.

Stating it over and over again doesn't make it anymore true.

There are equally as many scientists in ths world who disagree with man made global warming as who agree with it. That is why it is so highly debated throughout the world.

I don't agree with cutting down the rainforests no.

Not sure where you are going with that question?

iDave – a welcome contribution to the debate, it was well thought out, intuitive, showed a hugh amount of imagination and a creative mindset. Thanks so much for setting down your copy of the Daily Star for 10mins to type those few words!

which is that man-made global warming is happening.

– thats your opinion, not everyones, and that doesn't make it correct!

NASA is government funded right?

There are plenty of papers out there which link it, don't have the time to search now. But google global warming, sunspots, thousand year high – you'll get the picture.

At the end of the day, Scientists can not prove that global warming is directly linked to Man. Neither can we categorically say that its not.

My main issue with it all is that its not science anymore, its more of a religion. And we all know where religion gets us! Those of us who question the scriptures of global warming are labelled heretics or deniers – as quoted recently an innuendo intended to link us to something as horrific as the holocaust.

I am looking forward to the global warming inquiry (like the Iraq war enquiry at the moment) where the leaders of the world go on the stand to proclaim that they heard the evidence from a cab driver.

For every hypothesis there is a counter hypothesis or argument. This is the great and exciting thing about science. Unfortunately the climate models that are used are only as good as the data that is put into them. A lot of the IPCCs arguments aren't based on fact, they are based on prediction. In fact there own research goes into great detail as to why ALL the global warming and cooling over the last 400,000 years has been caused by natural occurences, sun activity, volcanos etc. But seemingly this is now not relevant for the 21st century!? Why is that? Is it because the IPCC scientists have their wages paid by the same governments who are a little strapped for cash right now? The same governments who are charging us green taxes but building more roads, more airports and less investment in public transport?

Not really, you've just pointed to a website.

According to who? All the research i have seen categorically links fluctuations in temperature on earth to sun activity. If you have evidence suggesting differently then great. Thats what debate is all about.

You say that cycles "ARE explained best by man-made CO2" – care to elaborate on that, or is that an easy flippant statement to make? Its easy to blame man-made CO2, but global warming and cooling trends suggest differently and at times far earlier than us humans had entered the industrial revolution.

It has been proven and ratifed by a large proportion of the scientific community that the earth has a natural warming and cooling cycle of 1500 years. In fact, there are far more smaller cycles of warming and cooling which happen every 50 years.

From about 1840 to 1890 the temperatures slowly rose by about 0.6degC. Then from 1890 to 1965 they slowly dropped by about 0.6degC. From 1965 to present day they have risen 0.4degC. The difference between 1890 and 2010 is that we have a knee-jerk media and governments who are struggling for money. In the late 1960s they were predicting doom and gloom that the earth was cooling.

Global warming and cooling does exist, but its just part of the planets natural cycle.

The suns activity vastly outways any effect of pollution or man made gases. The number of the Sun's cosmic rays hitting the Earth affect the number of low, cooling clouds that reflect solar heat back into space, amplifying small variations in the intensity of the Sun.

2000 years ago greenland was covered in trees, birds and mammals! Now its covered in about 200m of ice.

Global warming is happening – fact.

Global warming due to man is the biggest Con out there.

It is an excuse for everyone to tax you within an inch of your life.

We are in a natural cycle, always have been, always will be.

Fossil fuels will run out, fact. Don't worry about it. They will then plough resources into developing alternatives. Its really not an issue, just an adaptation. What car you drive really bears no effect on climate change in the grand scheme of things (which really is a big con anyway).

On topic – i'd go for a Volvo XC90

Cannondale

Definitly don’t learn to ride flat pedals if you don’t already. And there is zero difference in safety! Go faster with SPDs anyway!

Take plenty of spare brake pads, spare mech hanger and suncream!

The 101 of how to belittle someones opinion:

1. Accuse them of being a troll
2. Imply they are still at school

If the man hadn’t died of an unrelated heart-attack this wouldn’t even be being discussed. But because the press have linked it together well, the police are murderers and should be armed with flowers and polite language.

Man gets pushed over wouldn’t have exactly made great reading.

G20 DEATH OFFICER – now that sells papers!

I loved the picture of the guy throwing a chair through the bank window, there was him and the rest of the crowd were papparazi looking for “the shot” I wouldn’t be surprised if a photographer had paid a tramp nearby to do the deed just so they could get the front page photo.

Press – the scurge of the earth.

The problem is, that the media are basically saying that the policeman murdered the guy. When in fact, all that happened is he pushed him and he fell over. It happens every single day in the playground FFS.

Its ok for protestors to smash windows, burn cars, throw bottles at the police because they are “expressing themselves”.

WTF is happening to this country?

I guess it is quite easy to get influenced by the knee-jerk media in this country. Like most things really.

Well, i’m sure all the criminals out there will be pleased to here that. Police training 101, if the criminal is un-responsive to your first request to do something, ask again a little more politely, if this doesn’t succeed, then show him you’re extremely dis-pleased. Under no circumstances can you place a finger on him, this includes restraining or handcuffing.

Get real.

No, if directed by the police to do something, you do it. If they ask you to pull over in your car do you ignore them? No. He was walking along like a spoilt kid, taunting them and testing there patience. Pushing him was well within their rights, a baton round the back of the legs is the usual manouvere.

I’m sorry but he was quite deliberately being an awkward twunt, so he got pushed over. Big deal.The police were asking him to move along and he blatently wasn’t and very blatently intent on antagonising them and making their jobs even harder than it was that day. The heart-attack would not have been attributed to the fall. If it was, then it was going to happen very soon anyway!!!

First time i’ve looked at the video and i think he deserved it. Walking slowly in front of the police deliberately antagonising them. Can’t see how it contributed to the heart-attack, just a very sad coincidence.