You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Climate change industry has become the new religion - "Scientists" (clergy) trying to convince the general public that something exists to the contrary of the evidence of their own senses,increasingly aggressive when peoople don't see it their way, and quite happy to fake the data and compeletely undermine their own alleged professinal ethics when the evidence doesn't suit them.
I've just started reading through the leaked emails and code from UEA ("climategate").
It's pretty shocking to be honest.
It puts the IPCC report into a very different light.
Please go and watch the presentation linked in the first post of the thread and stop repeating the same POVs that we've all heard on both sides of the argument a thousand times before.
Which of you have actually watched the video?
I've see the video to Thriller but I don't believe in zombies.
5thElephant said
Good man. In that case I'm going to fit in an extra biking trip to Wales. Thanks for taking one for the team.
Don't thank me, I'm not doing it because I like you.
Norton, so that's a no then?
Climate change industry has become the new religion - "Scientists" (clergy) trying to convince the general public that something exists to the contrary of the evidence of their own senses,increasingly aggressive when peoople don't see it their way, and quite happy to fake the data and compeletely undermine their own alleged professinal ethics when the evidence doesn't suit them.
Oh dear. Are you actually serious?
They won't let me watch it 'cos they insist on using bl00dy Flash. I'd have to get my computer booted up unnessessarily which could contribute to global warming, dying puppies and kittens and all the little children.
To those of you who claim it is a new religion ignoring facts can you post up these facts rather than just give your polemic? You are correct when you assert that a number of people are quite preachy [as indeed is Dawkins] BUT it does not make them wrong.
There is near universal acceptance within the [b]scientific community [/b] as there is with say evolution, Big Bang, Einstein Theory of Relativity, smoking causes cancer do you doubt these and get annoyed because it is difficult to get funding to counter the scientific orthodoxy? Call these believers zealots?
The so -called climate gate is summed up quite nicely in this quote
The American Meteorological Society stated that the incident did not affect the society's position on climate change. They pointed to the breadth of evidence for human influence on climate, stating "For climate change research, the body of research in the literature is very large and the dependence on any one set of research results to the comprehensive understanding of the climate system is very, very small. Even if some of the charges of improper behaviour in this particular case turn out to be true — which is not yet clearly the case — the impact on the science of climate change would be very limited."[24
When faced with this level of ignorance and denial it is no wonder some people get annoyed …like Dawkins does with Christians and creationists.
Watched some of that, lots of pictures that prove that the glaciers this guy visited are indeed melting away. One of them shows a lovely picture of retreat since 1850 and it is quite a lot.
However
I'm sure the anti AGW camp are probably prepping a similar presentation to demonstrate why it can't be AGW and that 1850 marks the end of the little ice age etc etc.
I've watched a few of these things now from both sides of the debate and as someone with only GCSE science they are all pretty convincing. I do sometimes check out the presenters and to be honest the pro-AGW lobby usually wins hands down, the deniers are often easily shown to hold poor credentials - that was until all this stuff about UEA hit the headlines... it seems that since we can't trust what they and therefore the IPCC had to say their work needs to be scrutinized again, but can't well not properly as they have dumped the orginal stats...Great... looks like we are just going to have to wait and see, on the bright side we are now due a period of change in solar activity. If we start getting proper winters again then that might help prove/disprove some of the theories doing the rounds.
One thing I will say is that people always look to make ourselves the most important things around - earth at center of the universe, god is very interested in us etc etc. I'm sure that if the majority of scientists claimed climate change had nothing to do with man made emissions then many out there would still claim it was mans fault. Either the scientists are wrong or it in places like Indonesia it is gods desire to punish us etc etc.
What I can't abide are those who don't think we should cut down on pollution or those who think because they have bought a hybrid car they are doing their bit. It is like the power stations that burn wood - great we are using renewables, bad it is being shipped 6000 miles!
near universal acceptance within the scientific community
That's exactly the kind of rather patronising thinking that worries me - you are asking me to accept something I have no personal evidence for just because of [u]near[/u]!!! universal acaceptance by the members of a "community" who know better than me.
I'm not saying your view is necesasrily wrong, but I couldn't be made to believe in God just because the majority of the Christian community do so...
If there is such a thing as the "Scientific Community" then like all communities they will be bound by certain dominant conventions and beliefs - hence the current suppression and obstruction of evidence that gets in the way of those beliefs.
[url= http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8aefbf52-d9e1-11de-b2d5-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1 ]Good piece in the FT here, on the nature of secrecy in science[/url]
On another note, is anyone else taken aback by the hypocrisy of 30,000 eco-evangelists (according to the Indy) flying off to Copenhagen for a tofu-knitting circle jerk? Combine that with the 20 or so thousand of politicians and fellow hangers on and that's an awful lot of air travel...! Oh, and don't think anyone's innocent in this. WTF was Cameron doing, going on a jolly to the Pole to have a photocall with huskies to show "green" credentials?
Do as I say, not as I do?
That's exactly the kind of rather patronising thinking that worries me - you are asking me to accept something I have no personal evidence for just because of near!!! universal acaceptance by the members of a "community" who know better than me.
But if you had cancer (say) then I doubt you would be hanging around arguing the toss about whether chemo or radio therapy or homeopathy was the answer would you? Or asking whether it really was cancer? You'd be doing what the doctor, a member of a "community" who knows better than you told you.
But if you had cancer (say) then I doubt you would be hanging around arguing the toss about whether chemo or radio therapy or homeopathy was the answer would you? Or asking whether it really was cancer? You'd be doing what the doctor, a member of a "community" who knows better than you told you.
Actually, I would at least question a diagnosis before starting treatment - are you saying doctors never misdiagnose?
are you saying doctors dont know more than you ?
who would you question it with another expert memeber of the same community ?
with global warming when you question it across multiple fields with multiple experts you still get the same answer than man is having an effect if not can you please exaplain why carbon release and pollution is NOT affecting the climate adversly.
Right.
With a silent "Yeah"
Only when it starts to have a significant impact will something be done about it.
And quite right too, why waste precious resources fighting something that might not have that much of an effect? In fact, it's only when we start to face the problems that it may become economically viable to research the alternatives to fossil fuels.
eplain that last point a bit better if you fancy?
Ok - the reason we don't have a viable alternative to fossil fuels is because they've been such a cheap source of energy in the past. At the moment, because oil is still so relatively cheap, it doesn't make sense to spend the huge amounts of money required to come up with an alternative infrastructure, until it actually does start to run out, when as it becomes scarcer and more expensive the economics of alternative fuels become more attractive.
When it comes to climate change, if it does exist (and I think it probably does), how much should we sacrifice today to prevent something happening tomorrow? Also, how do we know that the way that we choose to spend our money today is the most efficient way? Who knows what technological advance is round the corner, that may save us a huge amount of investment of resources? As such, the logical decision is to deal with problems as they happen, in the most efficient way possible, rather than waste loads in the fear that they may happen in the future.
Crikey do people on here really believe in all this climate change nonsense? I'm back off to pistonheads, at least they all see through the lies.
I wish all the naysayers would just admit that they don't give a **** about climate change, and are unwilling to alter their lifestyle one little bit, rather than pretending that it's not happening, or that man has nothing to do with it.
Do I take it that 2 more people have joined the thread without reading the top post?
grumm - just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they don't give a shit, perhaps it's because they've come up with their own opinions?
I've read it, not bothered with the link.
rightplacerighttime - you never did [unless I missed it] answer the question of why - if you're so passionate about doing everything you can to save the world - did you have kids?
Had a look at the link. It's propaganda served up as impartial observation.
perhaps it's because they've come up with their own opinions?
Based on what?
Mine are based on the things I've read about globalisation, economics, and global warming amongst others.
excellent give us the references then and the we can all be so informed especially the peer review ones on global warming
uplink,
At the risk of taking even more flack for my alleged "holier than thou" attitude, my fears about climate change have in fact been a factor in stopping me having more than the 2 kids I've got.
Would I be right in thinking that you don't have kids BTW?
For me, and I expect for most people, the decision to have them wasn't exactly something that my wife and I rationalised, it was just something we had to do. But having got a couple of nice ones it is easier to rationalise about not having more. The way I see it is that we are only replacing ourselves in the overall population and also that we are bringing our kids up to at least be aware of climate change, peak-oil etc, - so hopefully they will turn out to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
And of course I haven't ever, and wouldn't try telling people not to have kids. it wasn't me who said that having children was the worst thing you could do for the environment, and I don't necessarily think it is. It depends how they choose to live.
In fact I wouldn't even tell people not to drive a car, fly or leave all the lights on either. But I would ask them to think about these things very carefully.
In any case, paradoxically, if I didn't have kids, then maybe I wouldn't be so worried about the climate - but nobody said life was simple and straightforward.
Kramer said
Had a look at the link. It's propaganda served up as impartial observation.
Because?
As I already said to someone who made a similar point. The project is half way through. Did the people running it KNOW what was going to happen?
So far the glaciers have been seen retreating at an increasing rate. If they start advancing then that will be captured on film too, so how can it possibly not be impartial?
Kramer, just noticed that you didn't actually watch it, which kind of makes further discussion pointless, given that the aim of the thread was to establish some baseline of empirical data that we could all actually see and agree on, rather than (as you're doing again) spouting the same old OPINION.
i watched the whole thing and i do think that we are the cause but i allso agree with kramer about the vid.
The trouble is nonk that kramer's opinion about the vid is made up - he didn't watch it.
maybe you can answer the question I put to him a couple of posts up, before I noticed that he didn't actually watch it before telling us all how crap it was.
well its a video of melting glaciers i grant you that but what is it proof of?
excellent give us the references then and the we can all be so informed especially the peer review ones on global warming
No peer reviewed journals on global warming, I have enough trouble reading the ones in my own profession thanks.
Relevant things I've read - No Logo - Naomi Klein, a couple by Georges Monbiot that I borrowed off my old flatmate so can't look up the name of in my bookcase, The Corporation - Joel Bakan, Collapse - Jared Diamond, Freakanomics, An Appeal to Reason by Nigel Lawson, the Guardian and the Observer fairly frequently, the Telgraph and Daily Telegraph less so. That's against the background of a fairly keen amateur interest in economics and maths, that's kept me reading various popular and not so popular maths and economics texts and things.
Not an exhaustive bibliography on the subject, I'll admit, but I reckon enough that I can hold and defend my opinion on the subject without having to resort to ad hominem attacks and the like - such as trying to imply that my basic argument isn't valid because I just don't know enough about the subject, rather than addressing the argument itself.
But you haven't actually watched the video on which you're giving an opinion?
rightplacerighttime - five words for you mate - sample error and intention bias. That's why that video is propaganda. I watched enough of it to see how biased the presenter was (not necessarily a bad thing, he's an artist trying to make a political point, which he does quite subtley IMV), and that instead of being the impartial evidence that you seem to think it is, it is in fact very much biased towards the climate change camp.
You don't have to see the whole thing to realise the inherent bias in it, just as at work I don't have to read a whole paper to realise whether it's any good or not - I'd go so far to say about 99% of the research in peer reviewed journals doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my field, I wonder how much does in climate change?
And I think that the opinion that I was giving originally was on the economics of the precautionary principle, which, again IMV, don't stand up to scrutiny.
it is in fact very much biased towards the climate change camp.
Maybe he's biased because he's seen the overwhelming evidence that you didn't bother to watch?
its not evidence though is it as we dont really know what it means.
kramer certainly doesn't does he?
I don't think the CRU leak can be dismissed this easily. It now transpires that CRU lost a whole load of data at some point, and only ever kept the post-processed data.
So, not only did they screw up on their data retention, they also kept very quiet about it and expected us to just take their conclusions on trust.
On top of that there is some very strong evidence that their data was heavily tweaked to give the "right" result, while yet again refusing to divulge this (until they had no choice).
That's not right.
I'd go so far to say about 99% of the research in peer reviewed journals doesn't stand up to scrutiny in my field, I wonder how much does in climate change
hell you have dim view of your own field ...but hey economics not a proper science now is it 😉
luked2 just check it out - see what people say about it ...not deniers but neutral people or hell lets assume all you say is true every last word that CRU said is an utter lie, a total distortion, a complete fabrication...now what about the 99% of evidence still left. those form other fields , other measures were they all in on it?
nonk,
But actually I posted the link for a very specific reason - please READ my first post - what I didn't really want to do was rehash the same arguments again with people who hadn't even bothered to watch the video.
What it is proof of (and all that it is proof of) is that most glaciers are currently retreating. But it does show that with absolute certainty for anyone to see for themselves with their own eyes. No dispute, no arguments about computer models or interpretation of statistics.
What I hoped it might make people question though are arguments for example like the "global temperatures have been dropping since 1998 therefore there is no global warming" one that we hear trotted out so often. If that is the case, then why do you think that glaciers are retreating at the same time that temperatures are supposed to be dropping?
Surely one of those things is probably wrong?
Would I be right in thinking that you don't have kids BTW?
No - I have 4
Isn't somebody somewhere thinking 'OK we've got a population of eleventy thousand with this general skills and socio economic profile, what can we do with them?'.
Good idea. They can all move to a small area of the middle-east. That's been done before and it worked lke a charm last time.
uplink,
so why did you have yours?
hell you have dim view of your own field ...but hey economics not a proper science now is it
Actually I'm a medic, and even taking account of the poor reputation medics have for research, in most scientific disciplines that I have friends who work in, they consider the majority of published research to be filler and grant justification, little more. To qualify this, I probably have five good friends who work in university departments doing research, and most of them in biomedical sciences.
To my understanding though, there's quite a lot of scepticism about the quality of most research in many disciplines.
If it gets in 'Nature' it's probably decent (which is why a Nature paper will pretty much set you up for life in research), most other journals (even the peer reviewed ones) just aren't that good.
I read economics books for fun. 😳
[url= http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.122.html ]Nature report on Greenland ice loss[/url]
[url= http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0912/full/climate.2009.116.html ]Nature report on Kilimanjaro ice loss[/url]
[url= http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0908/full/climate.2009.69.html ]Nature on thinning Arctic sea ice[/url]
[url= http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0901/full/climate.2008.136.html ]Nature report on retreating Himalayan glaciers[/url]
A few recent Nature articles about ice loss. But probably it can all be accounted for by sample error and intention bias. Probably not worth doing anything about it yet.
All I know is that the Mer de Glace is now a right hoof up the stairs/ladders compared to what it used to be a 100 years ago.
rightplacerighttime - actually what you've linked to are stories from the news section of Nature, not actual Nature papers.
Rightplace - I've watched your video - I suggest you might be so kind as to read this and watch the video, then offer your opinion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2009/aug/21/greenpeace-sea-ice-mistake-climate-sceptics
"As a pressure group, we have to emotionalise issues and we're not ashamed of emotionalising issues."
Among those of you that do think CO2 emissions are responible for changes in cliamte that will adversly affect humanity how many have you have done anything significant such as:
1.Choosing to live near your work and the services you use.
2.Using public transport, a bike or your feet to get to work.
3.Investing in insulating your house and heating system to the point your heating consumption is below 3000 kWh/year.
4.Having a solar hot water heater or heat pump.
5.Producing enough electricity to have a negative electricity bill.
6.Changing your eating habits in favour of local produce.
7.Using the train for long distance continental travel.
8.Reducing your general level of consumption of goods and services.
9.Deciding to limit your family size if you still have the choice.
10. Composting your bio waste.
11. collecting rain water for toilet flushing and garden use
Score yourselves out of the number of points that apply to you giving half marks if for example you do more long distance miles by train than car but still own a car. I'm at 8.5/11
The first step is understanding the issues, the second actually doing something. A flash new car often takes priority over a heat pump or solar panels.
I score a paltry 4.5, in my defence I'd add that I rent which rules out the house changes, though under cross examination, I'd probably have to admit that it probably wouldn't make a difference to my score 🙂
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.)
[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?