Overhype on global warming

[parmenides3]

Not quite, Pengu. Adaptation is all very well where the means and the will exist to adapt, but whilst its easy enough to stop building in the UK on flood plains and marginal land, the same isn't true for much of the world. One of the problems we have to solve is who do we help and how? No matter how hard we try, no technology is going to stop Bangladesh from continuing to flood every year, and from the likely increasing severity of flooding from relatively small sea level rises, we need to ask tough questions like; is Bangladesh salvageable? And if it isn't, where are all the people in Bangladesh going to live? How are they going to survive? And that's just one example.

But adaptation only deals with reacting to anticipated problems, and still depends in large part on technology and resources which aren't available where they are most needed. Yes it is necessary to help prevent some of the most extreme problems which might result down the line, but it doesn't stop the train. The train is continued warming, and its associated impacts. And, the more warming, the more impacts there will be. If there is no mitigation, ie. slowing down the growth, stabilising and finally reducing emissions into the atmosphere, then the train keeps running. Adaptation without mitigation can only be a sticking plaster. Putting a plaster on a blister caused by ill-fitting shoes works for a while, but unless you get rid of the shoes, the problem returns.

So, there are two types of problem; the immediate; weather and climate extremes and changes which put livelihoods and food supplies, industry and homes at risk, and the slower, deeper, more substantial problem of the semi-permanent changing of the global climate system, which is the root cause of the immediate problems. There's no point fixing the first if you don't fix the second. Likewise, there's no point fixing the second if you then do nothing to ameliorate what has already happened. The only meaningful response - not a solution, but an attempt to prevent reaching a point beyond which no further action will help - is to both adapt and mitigate.

Final point. You can care about the environment and believe nuclear fuel is the best long-term energy solution; there is no contradiction in this. You can also be strongly anti-nuclear and still be serious about climate mitigation and energy policy. As we don't yet have an ideal answer to the energy problem, we need to deal with the problem we do know we have; the ones of emissions and, as jethro points out, major land-use change. We can address these problems, and work towards solving them, even if we don't yet know how we're going to provide all the energy the world needs for the future without turning it into a ball of steam.

The point about what we spend or don't spend matters, because production is founded on consumption - demand. If the demand changes, the market must change, or collapse. Markets are good at adapting; better, in many ways, than human societies. This is because they are artificial constructs. So, by consuming in a different way, we place pressure on the markets to adapt to a more sustainable means of providing the produce which is viable, rather than providing the cheapest, most profitable option.

'Nuff said.

:)P

[HighPressure]

The point about what we spend or don't spend matters, because production is founded on consumption - demand. If the demand changes, the market must change, or collapse. Markets are good at adapting; better, in many ways, than human societies. This is because they are artificial constructs. So, by consuming in a different way, we place pressure on the markets to adapt to a more sustainable means of providing the produce which is viable, rather than providing the cheapest, most profitable option.

'Nuff said.

:)P

I agree P3 that's why I like carbon credits for industry, I want to see these manufacturers get penalised not just for their emissions but for the products they produce. I want Range Rover to be responsible for every single 5ltr Vogue that they produce, that's how change will happen. I don't see charging the end user is any sort of deterrent, coupled with this the import of vehicles over 3ltr should be clobbered or banned. Likewise with aircraft, the UK has the busiest airports in the World lets start stating the type of aircraft we will allow in?

You just watch how quickly the producers adapt to this!

Edited August 5, 2007 by HighPressure

[parmenides3]

HP: If we stop buying Range Rovers, or anything, the first reaction will be to remarket it, then, eventually, drop the product. OTOH, we wouldn't even know we 'wanted' half the stuff we have, if we weren't told how essential it was in making us more desireable to the opposite sex, or better parents, or whatever insecurity the advertisers play on to shift their latest piece of tat.

Both need to change. Both probably will, eventually. However, whilst the principal way in which we judge our own or others' worth is by the capacity for conspicuous consumption, we are trapped. Whilst we still believe we should have a right to have what we want, whatever it is, if we we can afford it, reagrdless of consequence or cause, we are trapped. But how do you stop anyone from wanting? You can't. The decision that you feel better as a person for careful and considered consumption, rather than just consumption, has to be one made by each person. It will be influenced by what others think, and what we think others think, but we still have to decide; what will make me a happier person?

On carbon credits; how about companies having to purchase them, rather than simply get an allocation? If you want to make profit from a product which has a high carbon footprint, you have to pay for it; manufacturers of low-carbon, low-impact, ethically produced product get rewarded through tax breaks.

Again, though, cars and planes are only a part of the bigger problem. The bigger problems are the development of old-fashioned but cheap coal-fired power stations, and large scale deforestation and land use change.

:)P

[Turnedoutniceagain]

Well done, Fatty. That killed the thread.

LOL

[HighPressure]

P3: Even though our views do differ as I am rather more of a sceptic then you are there is an awful lot of common ground there, its a shame that we cannot get broader agreement across the spectrum of beliefs.

It does pain me to suggest nuclear is the way forward but I think its the best option from a bad bunch which are currently on the table and comes with its own set of problems.

Again I don't have many arguments with the range of measures you suggest but my scepticism really kicks in with the chosen delivery methods. The IPCC's lack of independence and unwillingness to encompass all views is a real problem for me as is the confidence levels they attribute to their findings which are way too high to be credible in my view. The IPCC have put themselves in a position to be shot at by attributing what are needless and meaningless levels of confidence and what's worse they have done this with little track history of being correct in the past. I think this just opens the door for criticism not only for opposes but to AGW supporters too, I know it really winds me up.

I also doubt our own governments let alone those around the world ability to do more than just go for the easy target of the end user. I just cannot see how a government on the one hand can be offering subsidies to companies such as BMW to build their X5 in the UK to create job for instance and then be slapping hefty CO2 emissions tariffs on them, I just don't see the 2 headed approach working, hence the end user is easiest target. Another example (OK a small one but it will be repeated) is a government suggesting children should not be driven to school, yet allowing Brighton council to implement a policy totally contrary to this giving parents the right to send their children to schools on the otherside of town?

I would much rather see independent bodies in control of environmental policy planning similar to the way the bank of England sets interest rates?

Then we have still got to deal with the issues of adaptation and those who will be displaced by rising sea levels, human's were originally a nomadic race for a reason?

[The Eagle]

Its hard to overestimate just how much the credibility of the AGW argument was damaged due to hysteria in the 1970s.........some examples

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

"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

"If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age."

Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.

Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)

Familiar eh? - I expect excuses for this but the fact is that the 70's were a monumental embarrasment in retrospect. I do wonder in 30 years time how people will look back on the present hysteria? Today rinse and repeat everything said in the 70's..........change the dates and replace 'cool' with 'warm' - ensure media hysteria - everything extraordinary must be linked to AGW - propaganda

What was it George Bush said again - Fool me once - shame on you - fool me........eh...........eh........you cant fool me again.

Im sure there is genius behind the stupidity

Edited August 6, 2007 by Darkman

[Bobby]

Saying that some scientists were wrong in the 1970's so they must all be wrong today just isn't much of an argument I'm afraid. The first sign of someone who has no evidence for their beliefs is when they start attacking the characters of the sources and not the actual science.

[The PIT]

Quite a valid point Darkman.

Add to that the following.

We're all going to die of aids. Not happened.

We're all going to die of bird flu which hasn't happened either shows how strong the politics of fear can be.

I'm all for clearing up the planet as it's a good thing to do anyway. However when cleaning up seems to linked with increasing taxes I get a bit dubious about the real reasons.

The Planets climate has been changing for years and no one can say 100% how much is natural or how much is man made.

[Optimus Prime]

At the end of the day scientists can say what they like. Whether or not they put much fundamental research into it they will always come up with the worse possible scenario, it's human nature.

The world is warming, consistently fast. Take a look at;

2006;

2000;

1996;

1990;

1984;

1978;

1972;

Looks fairly consistent that the further you go back from 2006 the cooler the earth gets.

[Devonian]

Quite a valid point Darkman.

Add to that the following.

We're all going to die of aids. Not happened.

We're all going to die of bird flu which hasn't happened either shows how strong the politics of fear can be.

A person goes to the doctor 'I'm ill' he says, 'take this' says the doctor.

The person gets better. 'I've got better! What do doctors know!' he says.

That, in essence is what you are saying wrt aids. That we took the treatment but that, somehow, that wasn't why it's not now a problem . Wrong...

Fact is, if people went around not taking precautions, and treatments were not available, a load more people would now have aids. And indeed, the same precautions/treatment approach may well be why bird flu hasn't appeared.

I'm all for clearing up the planet as it's a good thing to do anyway. However when cleaning up seems to linked with increasing taxes I get a bit dubious about the real reasons.

It's quite amazing how often people reach for the 'it's about tax' 'argument'.

The Planets climate has been changing for years and no one can say 100% how much is natural or how much is man made.

You can't be 100% sure smoking 60 fags a day will have adverse health effect either - but it's not an line of argument I'd use.

[VillagePlank]

Saying that some scientists were wrong in the 1970's so they must all be wrong today just isn't much of an argument I'm afraid. The first sign of someone who has no evidence for their beliefs is when they start attacking the characters of the sources and not the actual science.

Whilst I sympathise strongly with the notion that the science of climatology is much more advanced than what it was in the 1970's it is not enough, I'm afraid, to shrug of the reference to past behaviour in order to justify current. There have always been scare stories about the climate, and not one has come to fruition. Is it not enough to ask 'I've heard this cry of wolf, before' without being told that to do so constitutes a reliance on a logical fallacy? Do you really find it so abhorrent that you resort to references such as 'attacking,' and 'no evidence'?

Indeed the chemical and molecular science of CO2 and it's effect on the atmopshere is pretty much sewn and up and understood, but I can still find no satisfactory answer to the question of cloud cover which by far regulates the climate more than most other things put together. I can still find no satisfactory explanation of how many people will be running around in 20 years: surely the human CO2 output is linearly correlated with the number of humans around? If the human CO2 output is linearly correlated, and the temperature is correlated to CO2 then how can we make predictions of man-made temperature without a good calculation of how many men will be around?

The science, itself, seems reasonable and good, but, currently, in my opinion, it's like talking of a theory of gravity which contains reference to only one body.

So in order to progress the argument, I'd like to ask any pro-AGW how many people will be running around in 2027, and why that belief is justified, scientifically.

Edited August 6, 2007 by VillagePlank

[Angel15]

I just don't understand why the concept of global warming is so strongly opposed .. it seems fairly evident to me, just by the temperatures of the seasons over the past years that something is occurring. The argument of whether it is man made or not is not the issue, the fact is we know that pumping filth into the atmosphere is affecting this planet, so why not do something about that - if the global warming is 'natural' then it will lessen its effects.

Until the Government implement a new Regulation re pollution, etc, and other countries follow suit, I can't see much changing in any event.

[Devonian]

Whilst I sympathise strongly with the notion that the science of climatology is much more advanced than what it was in the 1970's it is not enough, I'm afraid, to shrug of the reference to past behaviour in order to justify current. There have always been scare stories about the climate, and not one has come to fruition. Is it not enough to ask 'I've heard this cry of wolf, before' without being told that to do so constitutes a reliance on a logical fallacy? Do you really find it so abhorrent that you resort to references such as 'attacking,' and 'no evidence'?

Indeed the chemical and molecular science of CO2 and it's effect on the atmopshere is pretty much sewn and up and understood, but I can still find no satisfactory answer to the question of cloud cover which by far regulates the climate more than most other things put together.

If cloud cover is a question to you how come you can then say 'which by far regulates the climate more than most other things put together' it's one or the other - known or unknown.

I can still find no satisfactory explanation of how many people will be running around in 20 years: surely the human CO2 output is linearly correlated with the number of humans around? If the human CO2 output is linearly correlated, and the temperature is correlated to CO2 then how can we make predictions of man-made temperature without a good calculation of how many men will be around?

The science, itself, seems reasonable and good, but, currently, in my opinion, it's like talking of a theory of gravity which contains reference to only one body.

So in order to progress the argument, I'd like to ask any pro-AGW how many people will be running around in 2027, and why that belief is justified, scientifically.

You think there might be less people around in 2027 than now?

The link between CO2 and human numbers is correlation but not a direct causation. Atmosphere CO2 conc change is due to the CO2 our activities produce not our numbers. But, various scenarios take various future change into account - if we proceed in a 'business as usual' fashion then it's likely warming will not only continue but accelerate.

[VillagePlank]

If cloud cover is a question to you how come you can then say 'which by far regulates the climate more than most other things put together' it's one or the other - known or unknown.

Errr. No. Flatly. No.

I know that clouds have a huge impact on the environment. We know this from meteorology. It must, then, by default, affect climatology - that is the mean difference over time. We know this by observation (we all know that it gets cooler under clouds) What we don't know is how to predict cloud cover.

You think there might be less people around in 2027 than now?

That is an assumption (that seems on the face of it to be well-founded) However, the magnitude of increase is unknown, and I know of no models (which, of course, doesn't say that there isn't any) that correctly modify changes in human population.

The link between CO2 and human numbers is correlation but not a direct causation. Atmosphere CO2 conc change is due to the CO2 our activities produce not our numbers. But, various scenarios take various future change into account - if we proceed in a 'business as usual' fashion then it's likely warming will not only continue but accelerate.

My point is inductive: that is, the greater the number of humans the greater the likelihood of extra CO2, which seems quite reasonable to me. I take on board your point that different levels of population are accounted for in the range of scenarios.

I just don't understand why the concept of global warming is so strongly opposed

I don't think it is. Look at the CET series for one such (exaggerated) example.

[Bobby]

Whilst I sympathise strongly with the notion that the science of climatology is much more advanced than what it was in the 1970's it is not enough, I'm afraid, to shrug of the reference to past behaviour in order to justify current. There have always been scare stories about the climate, and not one has come to fruition. Is it not enough to ask 'I've heard this cry of wolf, before' without being told that to do so constitutes a reliance on a logical fallacy? Do you really find it so abhorrent that you resort to references such as 'attacking,' and 'no evidence'?

Indeed the chemical and molecular science of CO2 and it's effect on the atmopshere is pretty much sewn and up and understood, but I can still find no satisfactory answer to the question of cloud cover which by far regulates the climate more than most other things put together. I can still find no satisfactory explanation of how many people will be running around in 20 years: surely the human CO2 output is linearly correlated with the number of humans around? If the human CO2 output is linearly correlated, and the temperature is correlated to CO2 then how can we make predictions of man-made temperature without a good calculation of how many men will be around?

The science, itself, seems reasonable and good, but, currently, in my opinion, it's like talking of a theory of gravity which contains reference to only one body.

So in order to progress the argument, I'd like to ask any pro-AGW how many people will be running around in 2027, and why that belief is justified, scientifically.

I wasn't using that as an argument to back AGW but to start questioning the scientists rather than the science is not an argument. It's like politicians doing character attacks on their rivals in order to discredit them rather than actually debating and arguing the evidence. It's a sly tactic.

[parmenides3]

Lots of interesting points people have made here, so I hope I don't leave anyone out.

HP: Ironically, nuclear power is criticised/rejected for its relative (imagined) dangers, whilst the primary problem with it is the huge cost of initiation and maintenance; unsubsidised, it's an expensive option. This doesn't mean its the wrong option: where's the problem in France with it, for example? It may well be that, for the time being, nuclear is the only viable option in terms of providing the quantity of energy needed in the UK in the coming decades without recourse to burning coal.

I'm not sure, though, what it is you think the IPCC is, or what you think it does. If you think of their summaries as ongoing textbooks of current climate science, with conclusions derived from said science, you mat be better placed to understand how it works. My own research shows that most scientists are more or less satisfied that its findings are both representative and accurate, though there is by no means a 'massive consensus'. You suggest that it exaggerates the confidence of its findings, whereas a substantial minority of scientists are concerned that it is too conservative in its conclusions.

There is more controversy about the third section of the summary report than any other part. This is in part because nobody really has come up with a best solution, yet. It would be hard to find a scientist, however, who would agree that this justifies us doing nothing. Given that we are clear on what CO2 does and how long it hangs around, and given that global warming is more of a problem the more extreme it gets, the longer we take to actually cut emissions, or slow them down, the worse the situation will get in the distant future; therefore, even if parts of the jigsaw are missing, decisive emissions controls must happen sooner rather than later.

Darkman: (&VP); it is important to distinguish between what the media says and what the science says. Darkman's (familiar from denialist websites) complaint that the current problem is to be ignored because of what happened in the seventies is based on a false assumption, that there was some kind of scientific body of evidence which suggested that global cooling was an imminent crisis. In fact, there was only one paper, published in Science, which contained some speculation about what might happen if the cooling trend which had been recently observed at that time were to continue. From this one paper, which only in fact stated the obvious (if its gets colder we'd have some problems), the media hyped up a whole myth of an imminent ice age. The story was just that; a story, and never a strong scientific finding supported by substantial evidence. In this way, it is entirely different to the current situation. If you want to blame someone for the confusion these stories cause, you have to blame the media, not the scientists.

VP's other point, about taxation, is important. But again, this is not about whether the science is valid, but about what our government chooses to do about pretending that it is trying to respond to the challenge of GW. Blame the government, not the science; the science to not conclude that increasing taxes or charges will solve the problem; this is largely a function of the economists' interpretation of the message, and is based on the continuing need to sustain the viability of the global capital economy, not on the need to forestall potential future disaster.

In answer to the comments on population, figures and estimates are available via the World Resources Institute, Unicef and others. Current best estimates place the future population at around 10 billion by 2050, at which time it reaches a plateau. Most of the growth is in developing countries, particularly African, but also some Asian developing countries. The relationship between population and energy consumption is not linear; this is a mistake. The most obvious correlation is between economic growth and energy consumption; as the world becomes wealthier, and as the developing world catches up with the 'first world' economies, so CO2 production increases. Population growth is a part of this equation, but not the prime cause.

Angel: acting on pollution is important and obvious; pollution is, in the end, another world for poison. But atmospheric CO2 is not 'pollution' in this sense; its effects are slower, more subtle, and therefore both more dangerous and more difficult to get to grips with.

I should point out, finally, that many of the posts here deal with important questions and issues, but also that all of these things have been considered and taken into account, and the risks associated with all sorts of actions have been carefully analysed. The current argument is that no other threat to human well-being in the coming two hundred years is as pervasive and risky as GW, that this threat comes from human activity; both fossil fuel burning and land-use change, and that by our current and future actions, some reduction of the most extreme risks can be achieved.

Enough.

:)P

[noggin]

I would like to see standard lightbulbs phased out with a subsidy on energy efficient ones, it costs a quid or less for 4 x standard 100w bulbs but about £4 each for the energy saving type. This would save millionms of watts a day in the UK.

I believe that the phasing out of standard lightbulbs is already underway.

[noggin]

Its hard to overestimate just how much the credibility of the AGW argument was damaged due to hysteria in the 1970s.........

Familiar eh? - I expect excuses for this but the fact is that the 70's were a monumental embarrasment in retrospect. I do wonder in 30 years time how people will look back on the present hysteria?

Quite agree with you, Darkman. I'll put my hand up and admit that I believed the hype of the 70s.

I wonder if those who are whole-hearted supporters of AGW now were around (as adults) during the 1970s and if so, were they whole-heartedly in support of the "cooling" theory? (smiley thingy)

Personally speaking, there have been too many "oh, it's heating up"s and "oh, it's cooling down"s for me to take these temperature changes as anything but natural cycles now.

There is, of course, always the need to respect the Earth and it's resources.

Edited August 6, 2007 by noggin

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Well done, Fatty. That killed the thread.

No, I think it was me who killed the thread.

[HighPressure]

I'm not sure, though, what it is you think the IPCC is, or what you think it does. If you think of their summaries as ongoing textbooks of current climate science, with conclusions derived from said science, you mat be better placed to understand how it works. My own research shows that most scientists are more or less satisfied that its findings are both representative and accurate, though there is by no means a 'massive consensus'. You suggest that it exaggerates the confidence of its findings, whereas a substantial minority of scientists are concerned that it is too conservative in its conclusions.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a body of government elected representatives which in essence reports to itself for itself. I would rather see "The Independent Panel on Climate Change" or better still The Independent Panel for Environmental Protection. Governments are amongst the most mistrusted beings on the planet disliked by all sides of the debate, yet have their greasy paws all over the process from start to finish. Its a bit like getting Estate agents to create their own panel in to sort out climbing house prices.

I guarantee as soon as most people in the street see that the 'I' stands for intergovernmental they just turn a deaf ear.

Edited August 7, 2007 by HighPressure

[The Eagle]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a body of government elected representatives which in essence reports to itself for itself.

Yes and compromised because their lively hoods depend on proving GW is due to human activity. It is not irrelavant to point to the 70's as the source of alot of the mistrust. Despite some belief on this forum they were not important to the media. Oh yes they were. It was exactly the same as what is happening today. In fact - it was far more 'in your face'. The reality is that technology has advanced in a very linited fashion - the arrogance has not. Its exactly the same. This IS hard evidence as to how we should treat todays scare mongering. It would be highly foolish to accept the prognosis of a bunch of compromised people in relation to climate change. Im not prepared to accept this nonsense although some are. They cannot see beyond the tripe thats been in the mainstream media in recent years. I would go as far as to say the weak minded have accepted this as 'fact' despite the fact it is anything but........but they refuse to except an alternative view. This is because they have been minipulated into a fanatical view which is not consistent with reality.

I just don't understand why the concept of global warming is so strongly opposed .. it seems fairly evident to me

It seemed very evident to the idiotic in the 70's too.

Of course nothing has really changed. Those on this forum which push the AGW line have little evidence in reality. Mostly its pushed from mainstream media (who themselves have little or no grasp of the real science behind it). They have been minipulated - there is no doubt about it. They should just admit it before the tide goes out on the whole AGW agenda. Public symphathy is becoming non existent and they will look like fools in 30 years time - same as those in the 70's. I certainly will be proved right about 'cycles'. Im happy about that but feel sorry for the others.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Darkman

[Angel15]

Yes and compromised because their lively hoods depend on proving GW is due to human activity. It is not irrelavant to point to the 70's as the source of alot of the mistrust. Despite some belief on this forum they were not important to the media. Oh yes they were. It was exactly the same as what is happening today. In fact - it was far more 'in your face'. The reality is that technology has advanced in a very linited fashion - the arrogance has not. Its exactly the same. This IS hard evidence as to how we should treat todays scare mongering. It would be highly foolish to accept the prognosis of a bunch of compromised people in relation to climate change. Im not prepared to accept this nonsense although some are. They cannot see beyond the tripe thats been in the mainstream media in recent years. I would go as far as to say the weak minded have accepted this as 'fact' despite the fact it is anything but........but they refuse to except an alternative view. This is because they have been minipulated into a fanatical view which is not consistent with reality.

It seemed very evident to the idiotic in the 70's too.

Of course nothing has really changed. Those on this forum which push the AGW line have little evidence in reality. Mostly its pushed from mainstream media (who themselves have little or no grasp of the real science behind it). They have been minipulated - there is no doubt about it. They should just admit it before the tide goes out on the whole AGW agenda. Public symphathy is becoming non existent and they will look like fools in 30 years time - same as those in the 70's. I certainly will be proved right about 'cycles'. Im happy about that but feel sorry for the others.

Very pompous Darkman - to think everyone who is of a differnt point of view is idiotic - however, let us hope that you are proved right for the sake of our children and their future children.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Angel15

[Devonian]

Yes and compromised because their lively hoods depend on proving GW is due to human activity. It is not irrelavant to point to the 70's as the source of alot of the mistrust. Despite some belief on this forum they were not important to the media. Oh yes they were. It was exactly the same as what is happening today. In fact - it was far more 'in your face'. The reality is that technology has advanced in a very linited fashion - the arrogance has not. Its exactly the same. This IS hard evidence as to how we should treat todays scare mongering. It would be highly foolish to accept the prognosis of a bunch of compromised people in relation to climate change. Im not prepared to accept this nonsense although some are. They cannot see beyond the tripe thats been in the mainstream media in recent years. I would go as far as to say the weak minded have accepted this as 'fact' despite the fact it is anything but........but they refuse to except an alternative view. This is because they have been minipulated into a fanatical view which is not consistent with reality.

It seemed very evident to the idiotic in the 70's too.

Of course nothing has really changed. Those on this forum which push the AGW line have little evidence in reality. Mostly its pushed from mainstream media (who themselves have little or no grasp of the real science behind it). They have been minipulated - there is no doubt about it. They should just admit it before the tide goes out on the whole AGW agenda. Public symphathy is becoming non existent and they will look like fools in 30 years time - same as those in the 70's. I certainly will be proved right about 'cycles'. Im happy about that but feel sorry for the others.

Arrogant and dismissive.

Fact is, and I lived through the seventies and was a weather follower and recorder then as now, that there simply wasn't as much talk about a cooling trend and for as long as there has been for far longer (since at least the late 80's) about warming up to the present. You can insult people as 'idiots', 'fanatical' and 'foolish'* all you like but the reality of then and now is as I say.

* edit and I missed 'tripe', 'nonsense' and 'scaremongering'.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Devonian

[jethro]

A quick question, would those who believe wholeheartedly in AGW be quite so convinced if the UK had not had such hot summers and warm winters in recent years? I ask because we are told repeatedly that weather and climate are two different things but that message seems to either not get through or is ignored. Our weather in this country has far more to do with synoptics than climate change; globally temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees - no where near enough to account for the change in our recent summers and winters and yet weather is held up as proof that the climate has changed/is changing. Please give it some thought and answer honestly, if summers were to continue as this summer has, three nice days and a thunderstorm and we had a cooler frosty Autumn followed by some winter snow, would everyone be so convinced? Experience colours opinions, that's human nature, we all do it, I argue our weather has coloured our opinions on this subject.

[Devonian]

A quick question, would those who believe wholeheartedly in AGW be quite so convinced if the UK had not had such hot summers and warm winters in recent years? I ask because we are told repeatedly that weather and climate are two different things but that message seems to either not get through or is ignored. Our weather in this country has far more to do with synoptics than climate change; globally temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees - no where near enough to account for the change in our recent summers and winters and yet weather is held up as proof that the climate has changed/is changing. Please give it some thought and answer honestly, if summers were to continue as this summer has, three nice days and a thunderstorm and we had a cooler frosty Autumn followed by some winter snow, would everyone be so convinced? Experience colours opinions, that's human nature, we all do it, I argue our weather has coloured our opinions on this subject.

Nice try Jethro but you'll not find me, for one, claiming weather is the same as climate.

No, for me it's the trend over time (here, but more importantly, regionally, hemispherically, globally) that's gradually convinced me - the trend over my adult life. It would be a cooling over time that would reverse my thought - I can't see that happening, but we'll see.

One quick question, what cause synoptics?

Edited August 7, 2007 by Devonian