Village

I am being serious. Everything we do is absolutely natural. We do no more and no less than any other species on this planet. We are a natural part of our planet's ecosystem at this moment in time because the environment is condusive to our species at this moment in the Earth's history. But it will not always be this way. You have a strange mindset where you interpret everything that only one species does (namely mankind) as solely destructive in your words. Its absolutely bias and its only your opinion which bares no resemblance whatsoever to the real world. Why you dont understand that every living thing changes the environment I just dont know. According to you its only Mankind and his actions which are destructive. Try speaking to your local gamekeeper or farmer and ask him which animal is the most destructive. I am sure his opinion will be quite different and he may well focus on the actions of thousands of rabbits and pidgeons wrecking crops or the dear stripping the copses and forrests bare of sapplings and tree bark. But I guess you wont understand that view. Further, I guess that every year when nature burns millions of square miles of forrest to dust you will say that its natural. What you dont seem to realise is that nothing is destruction with carbon molecules Its just a rearangement of molecules because they cant be destroyed. However one arranges these then it will benefit some living things and not others. But, this again is only temporary. Nothing is a constant in the living world. thats why the word destruction that you use is the wrong word.

You see; you continue to use the word "destructive"..... I dont subscribe to that. I dont feel guilty because I have just as much right to be here in my present form as any other living thing. When I loose the ability to continually fashion carbon molecules into my persona then other life forms will take my place. OK, you wanted me to name one species on this planet that is more destructive and whose actrions have greater consequences than humans. There are many, but the most obvious; Bacteria

In your opinion you think we are destructive....I am interested in how this thought entered your mind..so please explain why you use the term destruction when all we do is no more and no less than eny other living thing? When you eat your meat and three veg, do you really believe you are being destructive simply because you have altered the molecular structure of carbon molecules? Since their is no primary cause for anything, every cause is the effect of another cause including your very existence. Now applying your logic that makes you a mistake. Why dont you apply the same term and rules to every other living thing which also consumes and alters the environment around it? If you think you are a mistake, Is this simply a mindset of yours or did you borrow the theory from somebody else?

Mankind does nothing more and nothing less than any other species on this planet. There is a problem with some peoples need to exagerate the power of Mankind. The problem as I see it is that people have become too comfortable and their daily concerns are trivial. My point is a simple one, all those who worry about the climate eversoslightly changing should be thankful of Mankind's achievements to date. These achievements are the very reason that one is lucky enough to have the time to ponder what may or may not be in a few hundred years forth. That is a luxury which has been born out of Man's ability to use resorces to his advantage. When the next natural real systemic shock comes then everybody will be denied this luxury. It will be every living thing for themselves. Your time wont be spent pondering hundreds of years forth, it will be minute by minute decissions simply to stay alive. That will most definitely bring the climate change believers into the real world. A world which will focus their minds on the truth that Man has no power over anything. The last thing on these individual's minds will be a hundred years forth. If they dont get it at that point....finally...then they may as well curl up and die. But remember one thing....even a blade of grass has more inteligence than that and does concentrate all its efforts on staying alive and proliferating. The end game is all about a race.....we are in a race to develop a sustainable alternative to survive away from this planet. Yes it takes resources, yes it takes sacrifice....but if we dont get on quickly and realise this dream we will be consigned to the dustbin along with every other extinct species known to have dwelled this planet. We have one shot...time is running...the clock is ticking....perhaps we will have an alternative in just a few hundred years forth. If we dont....nature will take us down as history has demonstrated all too often in the past.

This is where the AGW believers have lost the plot. In only labelling everything Mankind does as evil and wrong. Why? None of these blind believers in Manmade climate change have ever explained this point. The truth is that all species compete and hundreds of species become extinct all of the time due to competition with other species. Some species win out, others dont. This is not unnatural, this is totally natural and Mankind must also compete in this arena. The next step that the AGW brain deads will take is that they will recomend euthenasia of our own species. But rest assured, the hypocrisy of these idiots will ensure that its not themselves who will get murdered to save the world from ourselves....oh no....just as they recommend to everyone else that we should walk to work, stop travelling, stop eating meat and stop breathing; these AGW doogooders will continue consuming and burning fossil fuels and are not prepared to give anything up for themselves. Merry Christmas.......my message to all you doogooders out there who want to save the world is to take this time of celebration to listen to the advise of one very special man whoe's birthday it is today. He actually gave his own life to demonstrate his love for Mankind. How far are you prepared to go in demonstrating that you actually believe enough about what you preach to the rest of us?

Wrong, the whole area would be dense shrubland and forrested in places. The climate would also be marginally cooler at the surface, more moister would be available and there would be eversoslightly more precip as a result of increased evapotranspiration on a grand scale. This is precisely because the work of the billions of herbivore give little to no hope to the re-seeding and new shoots of sapplings. Idiot ideas that currently exist without question in some peoples minds that the actions of Man should be classified as unnatural are ridiculous and completely taken out of context. Until one understands that all life has an immediate and long term effect on everything then its pointless continuing with this.

Wolf, What you state as evidence is absolutely the way nature intended bacause at any given time throughout the ages some species are doing well and others are struggling. Its called nature and its this very slow change which tests all species. The idiots who simply note that a species of tree or a species of bird etc etc is having a hard time are simply observing nature at work. To then expand these common place, every day examples that can always be found the world over into some kind of proof that mankind will kill the whole planet and himself is quite frankly ridiculous. These idiots who make these claims will stop at nothing to make the world a sanitised, never changing cuddly environment where everything and every species is kept fulfilled, happy, safe and alive. Then a few hundred years later this whole artificially created ecosystem proped up by friendly man will totally collapse because its not prepared or strong enough to withstand real shocks and real natural dissasters. The proses of death and the process of suffering is good for all species and it is absolutely necessary for the health and vitallity of ecosystems. It is NOT a bad thing just because somebody told you so. The penny may finally drop with you one day and with these other so called experts who understand nothing. If you become ill one day and have the time to think properly for yourself about why it is that your antibiotics have stopped working and your immune system is not strong enough to withstand simple bacteria you may just realise how you have been mislead. You have probably already weakened yourself to the point that you cant take a cold shower outside when its near freezing point and you probably cant sleep if you dont have central heating. In doing so you are doing yourself and our future generations a dreadful diservice just so that you can have an easy time of it. These are all clear signs to anybody who knows even very basic levels about the natural world and the environment that man's deliberate attempts to make life easier, cuddly and cosy go against how nature works. Every religion in the world preaches that going without and hardship is a natural process and is encouraged because it's a good thing for all life. Its not bad, its not evil man at work because somebody said so. The truth is that you dont even believe in what you say. If you did you wouldnt be burning fossil fuels ...but you do, dont you? and that means that you dont care or believe what you say. When you have stopped burning fossil fuels, then come back to me and I will believe that you believe in what you are talking about.

What you say is purely a hypothesis that you have borrowed from somebody else. Where is your conclussive pr0of that mankind has driven rapid climate change to the brink as you purport? If you think you have found something then lets hear it because the scientific community have no conclussive proof to conclude what you do. If you take the time to check the temperature data and ice core evidence then you will note that none of the data supports the hypothetical guesswork which you state we are seeing and or any rappid climate change. Its quite the opposite...the data clearly demonstrates that for hundreds of years we have been living and still live in very subdued climate change times where very small changes are taking place. These changes are well within the natural variation. So bearing this in mind and looking to the future; are you again guessing that Man is going to bring about abrupt climate change as you predict or can you bring conclussive evidence to also back up these claims of yours too? Lets hear it...not guesswork please.

I think you are misquoting me. What you dont seem to understand is that you are nature and you do affect everything around you ...so unless you want to slash your wrists; then please stop appologising for your actions and making everyone else suffer your guilt. Firstly, the rate of climate change is absolutely within the bounds of what has always been experienced and further you dont have a shred of conclusive evidence that the current changes are driven by man in the first place. Secondly if you dont know that every living thing on this planet changes the environment then your need to distinguish anything mankind changes as un-natural is understandable. But your perspective is distorted. Why are you not complaining about the billions of wild herbivore running wild in Africa which have destroyed millions of square miles of forest and turned summers into a dry arid dust bowl for everything else?

I dont think Attenborough realises what a mess he has put himself in to be honest. He now needs to explain what message regarding species he is sending. When I said that he has contradicted his lifetime of work I meant it. Attenborough for decades has preached the same message: His story has always been how wonderfully diverse life is on this planet of ours and he attributes this to the constant upheaval all species face from their tough and ever changing environment. He has explained from all corners of our planet that its this constant challenging of the species which strengthens life and offers up diversity the likes we are only just beginning to understand. So why is it now after a lifetime of work that he recommends Mankind do everything to stop climate changing because it suits us not to have our towns and cities flooded and our agriculture secure? Surely if we have believed everything that Attenborough has preached all these years then we should want the climate to continue to alter and challenge life. If we work to control its variability wont we be weekening all life on the planet by denying all species natural hardship? Isnt that what we have done too ourselves? Is it not the antibiotics, the antiseptic environments and central heating which has now made our species more vulnerable ?

It was great right up to the last program when the BBC yet again couldnt contain themselves and sold us the same old bias claptrap about man made climate change. Nothing new...no new evidence, nothing conclusive, just the same old hypothetical hunch from Attenborough who completely contradicts his lifetime's message about species by making the statement.

In the news? Who now feels as I do that the recent series with David Attenborough at the poles was another attempt at pulling the wool over everyones eyes and selling the same old global warming story? Can you believe that all that wonderful photography selling us a story of endangered polar bears desperately chiseling out a life on ever decreasing ice was filmed in a zoo and superimposed? What else was a smoke screen? and what was the purpose of this at the end of the day? Climate change propaganda?

It is a minefield, quite right. This also should indicate why it is that predictions keep varying. Its obvious that the climate change theory relative to one small so called "greenhouse" gas.... (actually its nothing like a greenhouse) is not what is driving this planet. Water vapour influence is absolutely huge and makes any tiny weeny change in CO2 insignificant. So why is everything all about CO2 and nothing else? MONEY....thats what has driven the whole theory on climate change. Its got little to do with science but a whole lot to do with money. Why else would almost every thesis or scientific paper over the past decade always maintain a link to climate change? Why? not because everything is linked but because thats how you get funding for your project...no matter how diverse, how insignificant, if you link it to CO2 theoretics you get the cash funding. The whole thing is perverse and its the sole reason why we have had scientific report after report after scientific paper after paper on absolutely everything and climate change. We are on overload now and people have started to turn off.

Well I still maintain that statistics are designed for man by man and are absolutely not a representation of the real world. Its no good talking averages, balances, norms, mediums etc because this is a completely different language to the natural order.

That doesnt follow I dont think that follows personally. If regional weather eversoslightly changes as it does all of the time this does have an impact on global temperatures. One rarely has regional variability without a change in temperature and therefore global temperatures. This also follows with regards to precipitational variability because the process of varying humidity also alters atmospheric energy and surface temperatures most particularly nocturnally.

Hey Boar, My point is that for the last decade we have been pressured and scaremongered into believing that Huricanes would be much more common in a future world warmed by burning fossil fuels and that the future is in our own hands. The idea that we can turn the temperature up and down like a thermostat depending on how many televisions are left on standby or by how many school runs we make in a 4 x 4 is crackpot enough. However, to come with the same scare story about man made catastrophic Huricanes actually becoming less likely is fuit cake. Why? because now they tell us that if we carry on leaving the TV on standby and drive the kids to school in the 4 x 4 then we can reduce the chances of terrible Huricanes. The fruit cakes are actually saying its good for a quiet life in the Gulf of Mexico, but two years ago it wasnt!! Look here is what the IPCC said only four years ago: The IPCC's "Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis" Issued Feb. 2 Projections "Based on a range of models, it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense," "There is less confidence in projections of a global decrease in numbers of tropical cyclones." http://ipccinfo.com/hurricanes.php Now this is what they say this year: 18th November 2011 Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation A Special Report of Working Group I and Working Group II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change "It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged. [3.4.4]" "There is medium confidence that there will be a reduction in the number of extra-tropical cyclones averaged over each hemisphere." http://www.ipcc-wg2....d-HiRes_opt.pdf Fruit cakes.

It should be clear by now I think that nobody, and I mean nobody really subscribes to the AGW story. Some people just say they do because of the taboo associated with saying that they dont care enough to really make any changes. If people really, really believed in it they would actually make real changes to their lives and give up modern comforts. But nobody believes in the theory enough.

I would not expect you to have seen anything like recent years because you and everybody else has not been on this planet long enough and there is no data. We have only had this detailed data for a few decades thanks to satelites and so thats all you have to look at.

Hey Laser, If the IPCC applied their same computer predictions to Cricket do you think they would be any closer to being right? And thats the acid test isnt it....if they cant even predict one day ahead, then how the hell can they possibly hold up these predictions and ask us all to take them seriously. One minute warming will lead to more Huricanes, now they have changed to less Huricanes....and thats using the same programe! Absolute fruit cakes!

I still dont see any real change in the Arctic. The Arctic ice has retreated many times in the past. The most resent time when there was a minimum was between the late 1920's and 1950's before it again increased in the 1960's. There are plenty of reports about this waxing and waning of the ice extent. The only diference between the past and now is that all of a sudden we have very good satelite data and we can study it in detail without having to spend many years and exposure to this dangerous region to obtain the data. Basically all this data is still a novelty to climatologists and they only have the past few decades of very detailed data to look at ....so again its a snippet of time taken out of context. One cant draw any meaningful conclussions from this tiny snippet of data any more than if one solely had obtained an isolated twenty year snippet of data from two thousand years ago to play with. It would mean that we would be no more able to predict the future from that. Its fun to observe and to theorise, however, I think that its just as likely that we will be looking at increasing amounts of ice once again in the region in thirty years from now. Personally as I have said before in other sites I think the key to the regions ice is precipitation. I am very sure that it is the very slow shift of the input source in the lowest portion of the atmoshere at the surface. Critically this slow change can reduce or increase the amount of moisture to the region. This I feel is driven by the temperature changes in the Stratosphere which are influenced by changing input from the Sun.

I think everybody knows that the computer models predicting our weather type and what we can expect many decades to a hundred years forth are complete bunkum. We know this because the same computer programes are used to predict the stock markets years and decades forth and they too are complete bunkum. The real world has absolutely nothing to do with interpolated data and worse still; interpoltions on interpolations. The real world doesnt know about means, averages, balances....these are man made ideas which simpl dont exist in nature. The real world never sleeps, its in constant turmoil and it works on reactions to one systemic real shock to the next. Since nobody can ever predict these systemic real shocks before they happen then the computer programes which assume a future world based on assumptions are a complete waste of time or an intriguing pastime at best. Any applied physicist will already know this. Climatologists symply use computers to sell their own pet crystal ball stories for political reasons. And thats got absolutely nothing to do with science.

As usual, selective data sets again......if one extends the graph back 11,000 years one will note that this tiny carefully selected snippet is taken out of context and therefore totally insignificant. Its only the AGW enthusiasts who want to apply this one tiny decadal change to Mankind. Why? Especially why when there is an 11,000 year trend .... You say "how many years do you want me to go back?" OK....well try 10,000 years ....now try and explain why they tiny change in only this decade must be do to Human activity when temperatures have been varying quite naturally since the beginning of the world! Thats the case you have to make. So far to date nobody has managed to conclusively make this point, but the IPCC continually gets caught out exagerating with their claims so much so that they keep changing and downgrading them.

Listen, forget the emails, the pro scientific data in terms of the temperature sets from the University of east Anglia was thrown into doubt after the first climategate episode. Its obvious to many that the figures have been massaged with a heavy bias to warming. We know this because it was made clear that the data sets used had been adjusted to try and eliminate the UHI signal. (urban heat island) But of course the degree of elimination is a man made adjustment. I have always maintained that this is how the data sets are being manipulated. If one studies the raw data one can see where the adjustment is being made and how this can be used to paint a pro warming set. My personal observation is that the UHI is most significant during the night when radiation cooling is most obvious. The data sets focus on the UHI in relation to daily maxima and therefore the lowest example of forcing. Basically the adjustment made for UHI effect is too little. Check out the raw data sets and you will note that the small warming over the past few dacades has been most prominant at night!! It backs up my theory and also demonstrates why the temperature data cannot and is not now trusted. the new emails are too late....the damage is already done and the manipulation of data has been exposed.

What about the hand picked IPCC panel who are ignoring the large body of scientists and scientific evidence which indicates that the small variations that we are seeing are well within the limits of the background natural climate variation which has always occured? Was it not the IPCC climate committee who themselves banned the world leading expert scientist and authority on Polar Bears from speaking at an IPCC summit in Copenhagen because his findings that Polar Bear numbers are increasing didnt fit their theory that the opposite is true?

LOL at the IPCC and the way they continually change their story to fit the the data. They used to predict that Huricanes would become more common in an ever warming world and sited the bad storms of recent decades as proof of this. Now that the opposite is true they have done a complete 180 degree u-turn and now predict the opposite to make their story fit the current reality. LOL Can we take any of this crystal ball gazing seriously?