Poll: Has this winter changed your view about human affect on climate change?

[Admiral_Bobski]

Oh dear. Sigh. Did you read my first post on the poll? I mentioned that one winter does not prove anything.

I was simply asking if this winter was having an effect (sic! lol - bad mistake of mine that tut tut) on people's view of AGW. As I mentioned summer 2003 sent me back to the arguments. Sometimes micro events can force us to think about macro issues. Fairly straightforward and quite reasonable! Up to now nearly 30% have said it is making them either re-think or change. That's quite something.

This post has been edited in order to add the statistic (for Geludigilo's benefit)

Morning WIB!

Sorry, you're quite right - I did, in fact, read all of the posts in order, but I then got so distracted with that whole solar cycle thing that I forgot some pertinent comments. However, my response was a direct answer to the thread's title's direct question, so I kind of stand by it. (Sorry about the "sic" - a little bugbear of mine!) It is certainly interesting how many people have been "converted" by the recent spate of mild winters, but I am not (yet) one of them. If temperatures go consistently loopy over the coming decade then I may have to re-evaluate my thoughts, but not yet!

Thanks for pulling me up on that one - I shall go and write "Must pay more attention in class" one hundred times on the blackboard

C-Bob

Edited January 14, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[parmenides3]

Mondy: this is a new one on me: where does this '97% of all CO2' come from? Note also: effects of volcanism are taken into account in all climate models. Because such events are not predictable, a forcing is applied which reflects the average over the past couple of hundred years. Note also, that volcanoes have a negative forcing effect; they cool the atmosphere. There's plenty of material on Pinatubo and Chichon, two recent examples. Volcano effect on atmosphere is relatively short-lived (a couple of year), unless the volcano is huge - bigger than has happened in our lifetimes.

If you know of some material which you feel supports your point of view, you should post it on the pin, as I have already asked; it is an attempt to provide a 'balanced' coverage as much as possible.

I am wondering if you would enjoy reading this: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/onc...eling/#more-110 ?

I think this thread shows [especially with the graphic at the top], that there are, basically, three positions on climate change; AGWers, NAGWers, and 'don't knows'. Interesting that, for the past couple of days, the figures have stayed more or less consistent; 50% AGWers, 20% NAGWers, 30% assorted DKs . What also seems to remain consistent is the opinions of the AGWers and the NAGWers. Naturally, as an AGWer, I feel that the NAGWers [and nobody in particular, here] are refusing to listen to reason. I am equally sure that some NAGWers feel the same about me and others. But I'll continue to argue that I have science on my side, and will continue to try and convince people that AGW is real. So, please continue to post, challenge and ask.

regards, :)P

[Devonian]

This 97% business is to do with counting in all emissions but, for reasons best known to those who do it, not counting in all sinks. So, you're counting parts of the CO2 cycle but excluding others. Pretty darn odd imo, but it does have the effect of making our emissions seem small....

Of course what counts is the net increase. But people seem to want to miss that...

http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/13.htm

Edited January 14, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

Actually, just as a point of order (and because I do like to pick nits!), and in my defence, here's your first post on this thread WIB:

Some of you may not know this, but I used to be a sceptic up until 2003. I thought the change was largely due to cyclical patterns. One or two seasoned souls (mushymanrob for instance) might even recall me arguing this on the old Snow Watch.

Summer 2003 changed all that. I'm not susceptible to micro-climatic incidents suddenly causing me to become a believer. But that incredible, record-breaking, heat sent me back to the drawing board. I re-visited all the arguments and doing so changed my view. I am now firmly of the opinion that humans are affecting global warming.

So how about you good folk? Anyone on here having a twinge of a re-think as a result of this (so far) ridiculously warm winter?!

I've just highlighted that last line which seems, to me, to be the question I answered. It has been said in the thread on several (later) occasions that one Winter is neither proof nor disproof, which I accept, but I definitely stand by my response now! I'll go and rub off the blackboard...

C-Bob

[Stratos Ferric]

What if Mount St Helen's decides to erupt next year? The fact that the Earth naturally emits 97% of all CO2 and this total varies greatly every year is forgotten. Compared to mankind's 3%, and vehicles (all vehicles) 0.375%of the total worldwide emissions the fact that this is NEVER mentioned is at least misleading.

How many people here are talking about mankind's massive contributions when in fact, a busy year from Mother Earth renders our contribution meaningless.

...

We come back to this time and again. Let me give you another example: If a field, in natural cycle, can adequately support 100 head of cattle such that they need no supplementary feed, then we have a system in perfect balance. If I add just ONE cow, one cow, that will overload the system, and quite rapidly the field will struggle to recover, cows will go hungry, and eventually cattle will die. So long as the field has not, by this time, gone beyone the point of no return, it may recover and cattle stock may recover. There are plenty of examples of precisely such effects around the world - it is, in some of the fringes of the E Sahara, one of the drivers of desertification - only in this case the land cannot recover. The issue is re the "tipping point". You cannot argue the CO2 effect linearly, any more that the Russian spy who dies recently can argue that 1 ppm of poison cannot surely be poisonous.

Yes, there has always been CO2, but the system has been balanced. Earth's production and reabsorption has been in balance. We now have a situation where carbon that took literally millions, tens of millions of years to lay down, has been re-released in a decades (oil, gas, coal). Anyone who studies natural cycles will tell you that corrective reaction in a system CANNOT possibly occur before a triggering event - why would it? Cycles do not have brains, they are inanimate, simple products of physics and chemistry, and essentially linear.

Before the system can correct (and this assumes it re-equilibrates at the same level - it may not: when a river regrades it re-equilibrates at a lower height amsl, it can never regain height) there will be intermediate effects which are essentially system "burn-off". In the case of climatic change the argument is that that burn-off is, for now at least, increased heat in the system. There shouldn't be a surprise really; the long and short of it is that the earth has around it an insulating blanket: if we add more energy to the system why would it not heat up. Can someone please tell me where the mystery is. If we then add to the layer's ability to insulate (the GGs) then it will heat up more. It really is NOT complicated.

[Devonian]

Mondy: this is a new one on me: where does this '97% of all CO2' come from? Note also: effects of volcanism are taken into account in all climate models. Because such events are not predictable, a forcing is applied which reflects the average over the past couple of hundred years. Note also, that volcanoes have a negative forcing effect; they cool the atmosphere. There's plenty of material on Pinatubo and Chichon, two recent examples. Volcano effect on atmosphere is relatively short-lived (a couple of year), unless the volcano is huge - bigger than has happened in our lifetimes.

If you know of some material which you feel supports your point of view, you should post it on the pin, as I have already asked; it is an attempt to provide a 'balanced' coverage as much as possible.

I am wondering if you would enjoy reading this: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/01/14/onc...eling/#more-110 ?

...

regards, :)P

P, I've only just come across that new blog, I must say it is absolutely excellent. It's great to see a mathematician getting involved in dispelling all these statistical nit picks we continue to see on a contrarian blog you and I both know.

[Mondy]

As already stated, i feel it's time for me to bail out of here. In the past, on other issues, i've been reprimanded or banned - i'm not going down that road again. I like this site too much, and would miss it if i were to be given the boot again, for perhaps "going over the top" on a thread like this that can become heated. You only have to look at SF's bold lettering from earlier this morning to show how irked he was.

Thanks for the link P3, i'll sift through it with a special brew later this afternoon.

In return, you had asked for material/links which i use. I found most of the info reading through various links, from this link. Maybe i should post the url on the pinned thread?

This is my last say on it all. I've contributed to other similar threads before; evidently a large majority disagree, doesn't matter how hard i try to put my point across - that's the beast of 'warming'. Nowadays, if you don't agree with it, the target is easily shot down as the next member of the audience waits to pounce...Jeez, even my wife disagrees with my stance... C'est la vie

[Gregg Lamb]

I don't personally believe in global warming. I think global warming is a distraction to the real truth about our weather. The truth is, our weather is the same as it's ever been, cold in the winter, warm in the spring, warm/hot in the summer, and mild in the autum.

There have been very mild winters of the past before real effects of ommisions from human and industrial effects ever realistically looked to take any kind of toll in this world.

I believe the government and other authoritities, large busineses such as electricity, and gas, oil, airlines are just out to save on reserves, and make more money on the free resources of this great world. Call these people greedy, call these people liars ! There out to just deflect the real truth in all this.

We as the people of this world are the pawns on a large chess board being fooled into actually believing this crap, and saving on our general appliances in our homes and at work to just what ? Save the planet ? Nah mate, to save the rich from there precious money !

I know this is strong oppinion, and most won't probably agree, I mean look at this winter, it's been very mild thus far. But look at last year ! The whole of eastern europe was beyond frozen, and this winter was extrodinary. If we had global warming now, we had it last year then ! Theres no such thing.

Theres no such thing as bird flu neither ! Since when were we humans classed as birds ? But when a human gets the flu and dies from it, then it's bird flu !

Ah well, lets see now, Febuary will produce snow for us, don't you worry about that, winter will be winter very soon, and global warming will be ignored for a while.

Regards,

Gregg

[Devonian]

I don't personally believe in global warming. I think global warming is a distraction to the real truth about our weather. The truth is, our weather is the same as it's ever been, cold in the winter, warm in the spring, warm/hot in the summer, and mild in the autum.

Regards,

Gregg

Gregg, I'm 48. For the last 20 years at least I've been reading 'jam tomorrow' comments like your's. I'm still waiting.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Robbie
Chopped quote size to save space

[parmenides3]

Mondy; thanks for the link. I would argue that the author has been a little indiscriminate in his choice of material, as there are a peculiar mixture of sites linked to. Strangely, there are very few links to climate science blogs, though, and alot to op-ed and politically-oriented ones. On balance, though, I think it is interesting enough as a resource to go into the pin; after all, the idea is to let others make their own minds up. Needless to say< I don't think his conclusions are correct.

Personally, I don't see you 'going over the top', and would defend your right to disagree with me or anybody else on NW, so long as you don't break the forum rules. I'd much rather have a lively debate than a thread which just 'ramps' one POV, and for that we need disagreement.

Gregg: welcome to the discussion. Your post is a little confusing. Global warming is about the climate [ the long-term], not the weather [the short-term]. Seasonal variations are driven by the Sun. Long-term trends are driven by a range of forcings. You are right to say that there have always been mild and equally, cold winters, but the point is that it looks very much like, in Britain, we are not going to see as many cold winters as we used to, but we are going to see more mild ones, like the current winter. Your political points are your opinion, but they should not be confused with the scientific points; whatever the government or 'the rich' do does not change whether or not the climate is warming. There is bird 'flu, just not an epidemic on the scale some have suggested. This does not mean that it cannot happen, though, only that it has not so far. About the same time as your predicted snow, February, we will see the publication of the first part of the IPCC AR4. It is extremely unlikely that GW will be forgotten in that particular month.

Hope this helps,

:)P

[West is Best]

I think this thread shows [especially with the graphic at the top], that there are, basically, three positions on climate change; AGWers, NAGWers, and 'don't knows'. Interesting that, for the past couple of days, the figures have stayed more or less consistent; 50% AGWers, 20% NAGWers, 30% assorted DKs . What also seems to remain consistent is the opinions of the AGWers and the NAGWers. Naturally, as an AGWer, I feel that the NAGWers [and nobody in particular, here] are refusing to listen to reason. I am equally sure that some NAGWers feel the same about me and others. But I'll continue to argue that I have science on my side, and will continue to try and convince people that AGW is real. So, please continue to post, challenge and ask.

regards, :)P

Aplogies for disagreeing with you P3 (rare for me) but I don't think it shows anything of the sort. There are 4 positions, three of which appear in this poll and they are not the 3 you pick. They are: 50% AGWers, 20% NAGWers and 30% who as a result of this winter are going away to have a re-think and/or have changed their opinion and now believe in AGW. That's completely different from DK I'm afraid.

Captain B - think you're off down a dead end there mate, and I suspect you know this full well. The original question was perfectly straightforward and you've gone off at a tangent. The latter is fine, but it's not ok then to critique an entirely clear and completely valid question. It's very simple. Do micro events such as record-breaking Autumn or super-mild winter or, indeed, record-breaking summer send some people back to think again about the macro causes? It has indeed for nearly 1/3rd who voted. Quite right too. If we don't question ourselves and our 'macros stances' on the basis of experience we'd cease to be human beings.

Gregg - have a look at the Hadley stats and then come back. There are good arguments against GW. Yours isn't even close to being one of them. It looks for all the world as if it's simply driven by conspiracy theory (hence your completely irrelevant reference to bird flu).

[parmenides3]

Aplogies for disagreeing with you P3 (rare for me) but I don't think it shows anything of the sort. There are 4 positions, three of which appear in this poll and they are not the 3 you pick. They are: 50% AGWers, 20% NAGWers and 30% who as a result of this winter are going away to have a re-think and/or have changed their opinion and now believe in AGW. That's completely different from DK I'm afraid.

Conceded. I over-generalised. What was the fourth position?

:)P

[Stratos Ferric]

I don't personally believe in global warming. I think global warming is a distraction to the real truth about our weather. The truth is, our weather is the same as it's ever been, cold in the winter, warm in the spring, warm/hot in the summer, and mild in the autum.

There have been very mild winters of the past before real effects of ommisions from human and industrial effects ever realistically looked to take any kind of toll in this world.

...

I know this is strong oppinion, and most won't probably agree, I mean look at this winter, it's been very mild thus far. But look at last year ! The whole of eastern europe was beyond frozen, and this winter was extrodinary. If we had global warming now, we had it last year then ! Theres no such thing.

Theres no such thing as bird flu neither ! Since when were we humans classed as birds ? But when a human gets the flu and dies from it, then it's bird flu !

...

Regards,

Gregg

Gregg,

I'm sorry, but I do love it when a "head in the sand" merchant comes along and starts rebutting science without so much as presenting a single fact. It would not be so bad if the numbers weren't stacked heavily against you. Have you actually ever looked at the CET series to check whether "our weather is the same as it's ever been, cold in the winter, warm in the spring, warm/hot in the summer, and mild in the autum (sic)".

I've produced countless charts on here over the past 2-3 years that show quite clearly that that is patently NOT the case. I can only assume you're not old enought to remember when winters genuinely were wintry, as opposed to basically autumnal; either that or you live in a deep hole in the ground.

Also, when will people drop this "ooh, yesterday was cold, what about global warming now" argument. All of life ocurs in cycles with natural variation about a mean; that variation tells us nothing - what matters is the overall trend of the whole OVER a period of time.

I forget the author or the book, but it started with a line something like "there is no such place as Manchester". Clearly it was a discourse against Manchester, that much was plain to any reader. Your post reminds me of that first line, and that book.

Edited January 14, 2007 by Stratos Ferric

[Gray-Wolf]

RE: Human contribution to CO2 levels being 3%

According to the Mauna Loa observatory Co2 ppm rose from about 340ppm in 1980 to about 370ppm in 2000. I cannot think of what else, over that period, could account for the steady, year on year, increases.

So this near 10% increase of carbon dioxide concentrations over a 20yr period would surely increase a 3% human input wouldn't it? Since 2000 the annual mean growth rate has upped it's rate to over 2.3 from the 0.5 recorded in the 1960 reading, am I missing an increase in global vulcanisity over this period or am I reading mis-informed texts??

[Admiral_Bobski]

Captain B - think you're off down a dead end there mate, and I suspect you know this full well. The original question was perfectly straightforward and you've gone off at a tangent. The latter is fine, but it's not ok then to critique an entirely clear and completely valid question. It's very simple. Do micro events such as record-breaking Autumn or super-mild winter or, indeed, record-breaking summer send some people back to think again about the macro causes? It has indeed for nearly 1/3rd who voted. Quite right too. If we don't question ourselves and our 'macros stances' on the basis of experience we'd cease to be human beings.

Not sure what you're talking about here, WIB - dead end? I answered the question that was originally posed, and now you're telling me that it's not okay to state my view about this? I appreciate that many people will stop and re-evaluate their thoughts on GW on the basis of this so far exceptionally mild winter, but I fail to see why one winter should make me do this. I think I gave an entirely clear and completely valid answer.

You said this morning "Oh dear. Sigh. Did you read my first post on the poll? I mentioned that one winter does not prove anything.", and as a point of order I merely mentioned that, in fact, you didn't. Since I apologised despite finding this comment slightly condescending, I thought it appropriate to point out this fact. I am sorry if this has somehow upset or aggravated you.

C-Bob

[Stratos Ferric]

...Captain B - think you're off down a dead end there mate, and I suspect you know this full well. The original question was perfectly straightforward and you've gone off at a tangent. The latter is fine, but it's not ok then to critique an entirely clear and completely valid question. It's very simple. Do micro events such as record-breaking Autumn or super-mild winter or, indeed, record-breaking summer send some people back to think again about the macro causes? It has indeed for nearly 1/3rd who voted. Quite right too. If we don't question ourselves and our 'macros stances' on the basis of experience we'd cease to be human beings.

In a way they oughtn't to do, because it's precisely the same sort of idiocy that applies when a cold spell prompts a flurry of ill informed "where now GW?" type posts, and worse, newspapers editorials (which just further underscores my point about journalists having some writing skills but little or no faculty when it comes to analysis or investigation of science). All of that said, if this event is "enabled" by an underlying warming trend, then again, perhaps it is a tipping point of the sort that some people require in order to change their view. Others may require five such events, some ten, and a few others will be with the "flat earthers" - no amount of evidence will convince them because they have decided NOT to believe, for whatever reason.

If, as I suspect, GW (and AGW) is ongoing, and given that there will likely be undesireable consequences downstream, then for all the "impurity" of the impetus, I am in no doubt that the ends more than justify the means if it is making more people sit up and take notice.

[West is Best]

you didn't.

Ah, but I did Bob.

I put 'I'm not susceptible to micro-climatic incidents suddenly causing me to become a believer'.

I must remember to spell things out more clearly in future.

You're right though - I didn't expect that you would have to go back to the drawing board. Just wondered how many people might have done. Quite simple and straightforward question really, but then this thread has become remarkably tetchy!

I do agree with you SF - in a way they/we shouldn't. But that's the nature of humanity. It often takes something out of the ordinary for our brains to be tirggered. There are some remarkable pyschological/neurological aspects to this. We condition ourselves to see the norm, so that we disregard the occaisonal abberation (which is how we cope with the unusual). Neuro Lingusitic programming feeds off this fact to a tee. It's fascinating really. Without doing them a disservice I suspect some of the Non AGWers are in this camp: the world conforms to a safe perspective. It can take events like Hurrican Katrina, or this winter, finally to get our brains to 'trigger' that something is out of the ordinary.

Edited January 14, 2007 by West is Best

[Stratos Ferric]

Not sure what you're talking about here, WIB - dead end? I answered the question that was originally posed, and now you're telling me that it's not okay to state my view about this? I appreciate that many people will stop and re-evaluate their thoughts on GW on the basis of this so far exceptionally mild winter, but I fail to see why one winter should make me do this. I think I gave an entirely clear and completely valid answer.

You said this morning "Oh dear. Sigh. Did you read my first post on the poll? I mentioned that one winter does not prove anything.", and as a point of order I merely mentioned that, in fact, you didn't. Since I apologised despite finding this comment slightly condescending, I thought it appropriate to point out this fact. I am sorry if this has somehow upset or aggravated you.

C-Bob

I think that reinforces my point above, and tbh, it's a reasonable position to take. Quite clearly, and for a welter of perfectly good reasons, we all take different degrees of convincing before we accept any argument a true or false.

[West is Best]

I think that reinforces my point above, and tbh, it's a reasonable position to take. Quite clearly, and for a welter of perfectly good reasons, we all take different degrees of convincing before we accept any argument a true or false.

SF - see my edit above in response. A lot of this I think relates to neurological and psychological ways of 'seeing' that which is around us.

[Stratos Ferric]

Having read SF's reply numerous times this morning, a simple yes or no would've sufficed instead of a rambling which, to me, is rather unclear and portrays the poster as being tied up in knots.

Question 1: Do we control the Earths temperature? You did not answer that directly. Yes or No?

Instead you fudged around the issue by proclaiming:

Question 2: If yes to the above then are we going to try and heat it up if it gets too cold and cool it down if it gets too hot?

I'll read your reply again in a few hours when perhaps i've woken up more and actually grasped what you mean.

It's NOT a fudge, it's the right answer. We CANNOT control it, because there are other factors and influences at work. If we had the mother, father and all ancestors of a volcanic eruption next week then we would see how little influence we have in the face of major forcing. But, as part of the system, we CAN - and do - influence it. There IS no other correct answer. If we're not influencing climate then please account for the urban heat island!

[Admiral_Bobski]

Ah, but I did Bob.

I put 'I'm not susceptible to micro-climatic incidents suddenly causing me to become a believer'.

I must remember to spell things out more clearly in future.

YOu're right though - I didn't expect that you would have to go back to the drawing board. Just wondered how many people might have done. Quite simple and straightforward question really, but then this thread has become remarkably tetchy!

I did take note of that line, but didn't think it was pertinent to the explicit question posed. However, you are right, this whole thread seems to have raised some hackles, doesn't it! It must be something in the air that's caused many people (including myself, apparently!) to have got out of the wrong side of bed this morning...

Let us move on to more productive issues...

C-Bob

Edit: Thanks SF - I was afraid that I was being totally unreasonable. Perhaps I'm a bit unreasonable today, but not totally!

Edited January 14, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Stratos Ferric]

SF - see my edit above in response. A lot of this I think relates to neurological and psychological ways of 'seeing' that which is around us.

You EDITED - fey on you!

Yes, in my more provocative moments I canot resist making the point that SOME of the resistance to AGW in my opinion attaches to an emotional preference for wintry weather - it is the desire not to let go of possibility that prevents us from accepting an argument to the contrary. Being, personally, very much at the "wrong" end of the rational-emotional scale, my decision making criteria are different. Then there are a whole host of other factors getting in the way*: conspiracy theorists, creationist beliefs, capitalist / short-term selfshness...

* of course, this statement just reflects my own bias. Viewed from the creationsists' hill AGW-ers like you and I appear to be just as "out of touch", it's just that the crowd on top of each hill is not of equal size - not that even this proves anything; the majority is NOT always right.

[Gregg Lamb]

Gregg - have a look at the Hadley stats and then come back. There are good arguments against GW. Yours isn't even close to being one of them. It looks for all the world as if it's simply driven by conspiracy theory (hence your completely irrelevant reference to bird flu).

[Stratos Ferric]

Gregg - have a look at the Hadley stats and then come back. There are good arguments against GW. Yours isn't even close to being one of them. It looks for all the world as if it's simply driven by conspiracy theory (hence your completely irrelevant reference to bird flu).

Thank you for your comment.

I am merely although going off subject somewhat in my post, sorry, just pointing out that people can be fooled into believing anything that you read in newspapers, and the news on the telly. All this is filtered through governments and agencies, you cannot in all honesty say that becasue you read or hear someting on the news, it's raw 100% news ? It's like you've got to be-pre programmed into actually believing it ? The real truth is always bent these days.

...

Regards,

Gregg

Gregg,

I shan't venture into Avian Flu.

I do agree that there are a great many people out there, and a few on here, whose perspective and knowledge regarding GW is limited to the 2-3 inches of reactionary, ill-informed, headline grabbing copy they have read in "The Sun" or the "Daily Mail", say. That said, there is more than a critical mass of people on here who are actually very well informed, admittedly sometimes with a bias one way or the other, but still with a depth of data that enables them to put forward strong cases - I shall hesitate to say "either way" (meaning accepting AGW, accepting GW butnot AGW, not accepting GW at all as anything other than a blip, and finally, not accepting any evidence or argument to suggest the climate is actually warming).

I may not agree with them all, but AFF, BFTP, G, P3, WiB, SRK, GW, TWS, WF, Mondy - to name just a few of the more frequent contributors I see on these types of threads, are all very well informed, and do bother (usually) to arm themselves either with data, or primary source research.

As with any argument or discussion, the voice of the informed few can be lost in the hubris of the chattering many; it's important not only to listen, but to know who to listen to.

Being informed requires an investment, and like it or not the vast majority of the population really cannot be bothered to invest in any personal investigation into anything at all. For that reason two difficulties emerge: 1 - it's easy to be hoodwinked by powerful leaders (be they politicans, businessmen, or press - and they are all in each others' pockets, it's true); and 2 - it;s easy for leaders to make poor decisions.

However, we live in a society with vocal, informed, fringes - and one where freedom of speech does eventually tend to ensure that the right messages get home. It might take time, but that time helps to ensure that, for example, the mantra that WiB and I are flag carriers for, genuinely is correct. Whilst we may not acknowledge the fact, the sceptics play no less an important part in the formulation of the final argument as do the proponents. I should worry if the response to WiB's post was 100% of people accepting GW on the basis of this winter alone.

[Snowly does it]

As with any argument or discussion, the voice of the informed few can be lost in the hubris of the chattering many; it's important not only to listen, but to know who to listen to.

Athenian demagogues were very apt at exploiting this. Becoming the one to be listened to is the art of most despicable types. Perhaps the art is actually knowing who not to listen to, and for the rest, check their credentials and approach facts as lies until one has convinced oneself. Anyone who presents a fact, as most scientists tend to do, are alienators, presenting an argument is far more palatable as it allows humanity the dignity of discovering the truth for themselves. Thus the mistake of the media. In addition, the absence of any positive solution proposals, the blame game and the lack of scientific leadership in the politics of climate change just adds to the enhuit and laissez-faire. Why do I get the feeling that themost that will be offered as the Maldives disappear forever is 'Well, we did tell you'?

Gregg, Avian Flu is the name, not a description, of the disease concerned.

My name is not Marta, I am not coming from Ze Banks of Ze Majestic Rhine, however I distinctly recall German Measles being unpleasant.