Where do you stand on AGW?

[Osbourne One-Nil]

But why would the politicians allow that to happen and if that's your view, does anyone EVER tell the truth on anything?

[John Cox]

Hi, John....nice to see you, hope you are fine!

I have given the question a great deal of thought....I wanted to use my head rather than my heart and wondered if it would be sensible to go for No. 2. But I really cannot believe that man has any influence over the climate.....the Sun is so powerful....without it, how long would life survive on this Earth? How can we possibly think that we can have any influence against it's power?

So, I have plumped for option No. 1.

PS Welcome, olly!

Morning noggin,

Nice to see you too and although I have not had much time to post in the past few months I do look in daily to keep and eye on what you are posting.

I can see where you are coming from and why you have give the question much thought. Like you I have gone for No 1 if only to make the point that although man/woman may have some influence people's perception that we can have an influence is so overstated in my opinion and the effect of us is probably negligable if any.

keep up the good posts,

Welcome too olly and now that you have posted once there probably will be no stopping you

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Ok...so polluting the oceans, the Ozone Layer, destruction of eco systems, etc etc?

[Devonian]

Unless your cosy job relies on you agreeing with the politics..

Option 2

We've done this. If I mention fossil fuel jobs I'll get flak, but the fact is more people depend upon fossil fuel for jobs than climate - so we should trust them less? Lets forget both types of 'cosy' job - and just assume there are honest people on both sides telling it as it is.

I think the vast majority of climate scientists are honest as opposed to jobsworth, cosy. I also think the vast majority of sceptics are like that.

As I said, imo, if there is politics it's of the water down what the scientists are saying variety.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

Anyone fancy a separate thread to discuss the politics or is that just inviting trouble?

[pottyprof]

We've done this. If I mention fossil fuel jobs I'll get flak, but the fact is more people depend upon fossil fuel for jobs than climate - so we should trust them less? Lets forget both types of 'cosy' job - and just assume there are honest people on both sides telling it as it is.

I think the vast majority of climate scientists are honest as opposed to jobsworth, cosy. I also think the vast majority of sceptics are like that.

As I said, imo, if there is politics it's of the water down what the scientists are saying variety.

Do you know? I agree with everything that you have said..

[PersianPaladin]

But why would the politicians allow that to happen and if that's your view, does anyone EVER tell the truth on anything?

OON...politicians and big business are often linked...especially at the top level.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Thank you PP....in all my 36 years, I'd never realised.

If I was a corporate head, I'd certainly not be trying to hype up global warming, but there you go.

[Iceberg]

Personally I think it's more arrogant that Man has no effect on our climate, we effect everything else, why should climate be different.

TBH Option 2 is kind of a catch all, so I would expect it to win outright.

As to these natural cycles, I started a thread on this (yawn I hear you say ) but basically I'll believe it's natural when somebody can at least give a credible theory (I am not even asking them to prove it ! ).

Matt

[eddie]

I voted option 2.

I belive the IPCC are correct when they say that we are affecting the climate via GHG emissions but I am much less convinced they have got the numbers right. I just don't have enough faith in global climate models or the underlying assumption they use that climate is a completely unchaotic system and reacts to all external forcings (things like solar variation, cosmic rays etc.) in a similar unchaotic and linear way.

I reckon that any future warming will not match what current Global Climate Models predict even if actual CO2 emission follow the one of the curves used in the various IPCC scenarios. (Although I suppose with the huge range of predictions from all the different models one of them will get somewhere close purely through chance.)

This of course means that the future could be better or worse than predicted and doesn't change the fact we should do something to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Edited July 9, 2007 by eddie

[The Eagle]

Its 12C here on the 9th of July. Hard to talk about the merits of the AGW theory and keep a straight face tbh.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

And there we go....the "it's a cold day" argument.

What's the point!

[pottyprof]

If I was a corporate head, I'd certainly not be trying to hype up global warming, but there you go.

We always think of you as some kind of head OON....

[Devonian]

Its 12C here on the 9th of July. Hard to talk about the merits of the AGW theory and keep a straight face tbh.

Please let it be that you are joking. You're surely not unaware of the difference between weather and climate?

[senior ridge]

1 for me

Here's why

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976"

[olly aitch]

Thanks,HP,Jethro & John Cox for your kind welcome. I,ll be back once I feel I have something pertinent to add to the discussions and have sorted out how to add links.

[noggin]

Thanks,HP,Jethro & John Cox for your kind welcome.

....ahem!

[noggin]

1 for me

Here's why

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976"

Now here's another thing that ocurred to me regarding my conviction that it is all the vagaries of Nature. Being a mature poster , I remember only too well the "cooling" theory of the 1970s. Further research threw up the alternating theories of "oh, it's going to get hot" and "oh, it's going to get cold" which have run throughout the 20th century.

Is it an age thing? Or possibly a communications thing? Or even a combination of the two? Do people with short memories (due to their youth!) accept the current state of affairs re so-called AGW because they have not had to put up with any of this sort of climate-scare media hype before? Not forgetting, of course that we have loads more media now than we did have during any previous climate "scares"?

DISCLAIMER ......the following paragraph is not aimed at anybody, it is just something that ocurred to me whilst wondering about things

Or maybe, subconsciously, some people need to feel that they are at the forefront of current thinking and that anyone who does not agree with current thinking is in some way inferior?

Just a few thoughts..... don't anyone go taking offence as none is intended. B)

Ok...so polluting the oceans, the Ozone Layer, destruction of eco systems, etc etc?

I am not denying that mankind has done these things and I have always advocated respect for our planet and it's resources. However, I don't think that these things have caused GW.

Edited July 10, 2007 by noggin

[Osbourne One-Nil]

No, neither do I (what do you take me for...a stupid angry fool who....ah), but when people say that it's arrogant to assume mankind can affect something as fundamental as the climate, I beg to differ.

As for the 70's theory of global cooling, I dare say there's a bit more evidence that the world is warming and the climate is changing than there ever was for that, and more than 30 years down the line, we're a lot cleverer than we were back then (because of evolution).

[Essan]

And there we go....the "it's a cold day" argument.

What's the point!

But of course. we all know that if you get 51 weeks of above average temperatures followed by a cold week, the later proves it's been a cold year and we're about to enter an ice age

But seriously, it's a problem with the term 'global warming' and the public perception of what that means - a lot of people still seem to think that global warming means everywhere on the planet gets warmer year on year ..... the reality is that over a period of time (30 years min) there is an overall trend towards warmer temps over a majority of the planet's surface. some places could experience a cooling trend during that period. Most places will see some warm and some cool years.

Still, if at least 8 out of the next 10 summers in the UK are as cool or cooler than 2007 has been so far, and winters revert back to the colder snowier winters of the 80s, one might argue that this region is not seeing a warming trend. Till then ......

1 for me

Here's why

"This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976" B)

If it continues It didn't.

Anyway, the theory that a new ice age is imminent still stands. It is. Unfortunately, back in the 70s some people deliberately misinterpreted this - mainly to promote books. Just as some deliberately misinterpret current trends and predictions - often to sell books.

Geologically speaking the next ice age is due any day now. Say within the next 10 thousand years ..... (although some may argue that it has already begun, with currently warming reversing a general cooling trend of the past 4 thousand years)

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I'm going to have to stick up for Darkman and suggest that SURELY he was joking?!

[biffvernon]

Still, if at least 8 out of the next 10 summers in the UK are as cool or cooler than 2007 has been so far,

Essan joking as well? Look at the numbers.

[VillagePlank]

Fellow NetWeatherers,

I have found myself in the position where I need to address you all personally. I hope you do not mind. This position came about during a conversation with my wife last night.

We were, as is customory in the Plank household, enjoying a warming glass of single-malt last night in front of the telly to avoid last nights chill. Of course, I turned the central heating on to heat the house to 19C in line with current ecological thinking - we were told that we need to keep our house to 1C less than what the thermostat was set to which is 19C - I must confess to feeling a natural sense of goodness as I switch on my central heating when the outside temperature drops below 19C, and I look out over my street and think of all those poor souls who leave their heating off. At least I am doing something to help the environment - but I digress.

As I was saying whilst the wife and I were feeling, I must admit, quite proud (almost to the level of conceit) we pondered this great question that was being aked. Where do you stand on AGW?

Well, firstly, I am amazed that the moderators of this general gathering place allowed such a question. It is tantamount to asking how best to get frogs-eyes out. Make no mistake, I shall be complaining formally at a later stage. Nevertheless, as we were, by the time my utter amazement at the laissez-faire attitude of the moderators had died down, a little piddled, I considered the question in a manner, which to those who know me, is rooted in a rational, logical manner.

Well, who the hell is AGW? And why would I want to stand on him? (Purists will note that I assume the masculine tense, and I ask for their immediate forgiveness, but my anger, as I type, is rearing back up again)

I do not condone violence, and I am utterly amazed that people from what I presumed is a family forum are prepared to give this question time. So much am I appalled, that this forum is now on the list along with MILF in stockings, and Horny Heels, so the little Planks can't access such terrible information. I hasten to add that words are a very powerful medium.

However, given that I do not know what names AGW stands for (is it Alec, or Adam perhaps?) I think that to ask the question about an anonymous individual is downright disingenuous. Besides what has AGW done to make me want to stand on him?

If I were to put aside my righteous anger, and consider the question, I would have to conclude the following:

(i) If someone wants to stand on AGW, then AGW must have done something seriously wrong

(ii) We have a justice system to sort this problem out

(iii) In the absence of the justice system, and therefore subject to the netweather kangaroo-court system, we must presume that standing on people amounts to some form of lesser capital punishment.

(iv) Therefore the punishment should be enought to smart but not enough to permanently damage AGW.

Therefore I have to conclude that I would stand on his toes.

It would smart as my 12stone beared down, but immediately the pressure ceased to be applied recovery would begin. I have anecdotal experimental evidence to support this as myself and Mrs Plank tried this out to varying degrees last night.

Yours, in good faith,

VP

Edited July 10, 2007 by VillagePlank

[jethro]

Very good VP, got a laugh out of me at least.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

You have a lot in common with my Gran...she's got a 12 stone beard too.