Environmental agenda is slipping off the radar screen

[mackerel sky]

I went to see Al Gore's speech at the American Geophyiscal Union conference in San Francisco last December. He got a standing ovation, but that wasn't hard considering the lack of seats and most people were standing anyway. But considering a good 50% of the sessions were devoted to or related to climate change, that was unsurprising. Seems you only have to include the words "global warming" in a research proposal however convoluted nowadays and the funding comes through.

Anyway, global warming whether natural or human induced has planted the seed for people to act greener. I sit firmly on the fence, but my opinion is its better to hedge your bets and in the long term a greener lifestyle leads to a less polluted environment anyway - at least locally - which has to be a positive move. But I do agree that some GW fatigue is setting in. At the minute i'm submitting chapters for my PhD (in seismology, not anything climate related) and they are subject to a critical review so that, essentially the finished product is much easier to defend in the final Viva. I think that there must be plenty of people, myself included, when there is a severe weather event - but not necessarily completely out of the ordinary - that some in the media instantly blame it on Global Warming, without any further justification. Its without this justification that it can become rather tiresome and predictable, and quite frankly boring. And boredom gives rise to fatigue.

Edited September 28, 2007 by mackerel sky

[Gray-Wolf]

Avoiding the Antarctic these days are we? I wonder why?

???????????????

Oooh , your a naughty boy aren't you?

I take it your current with the 'Autumn Discussion' thread on current Antarctic conditions and the 'Enviro section' Mechanical erosion of the Ice sheet threads?

As far as I can perceive it we have more to worry about the collapse of the Ross Ice embayment and the subsequent emptying of the E.A,I,S. than we have all the other enviro issues combined. When Ross goes (and to my 'viewing' it seems to be on it's way) it'll happen fast. Every 1ft sea level rise eats away 10ft of the coast (storm surges/high tides) so once Ross is going so is the 'square mile', N.Y. exchange, Tokyo exchange to name but a few of our 'financial Hubs' that will be inundated with the smallest of 'melts'.

No matter how 'good a shape' the planet is in any interruption to the world markets stops the modern world (that's your food supply,fuel supply, money supply ,sanitation,Health care, Potable water supplies, law and order et al 'interrupted').

Quiet about Antarctica? NEVER!

Edited September 28, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Bobby]

The argument that our summers will get ever hotter and we will fry type of message delivery is doing the case of AGW no end of harm, what now if we get a cold winter followed by a couple of average summers in the UK?.

Who has said that the our summers will get ever and ever hotter? Certainly not any scientist and I don't remember the media ever saying this either. And if the media did say it, then they are simply wrong and should be corrected. If we do get a cold winter and some average summers... so what? That's no evidence against the AGW case whatsoever, and anyone who dismisses AGW based on this is simply in my opinion, stupid.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Magpie

[HighPressure]

Who has said that the our summers will get ever and ever hotter? Certainly not any scientist and I don't remember the media ever saying this either. And if the media did say it, then they are simply wrong and should be corrected. If we do get a cold winter and some average summers... so what? That's no evidence against the AGW case whatsoever, and anyone who dismisses AGW based on this is simply in my opinion, stupid.

Oh come on Maggie, the suggestion from the tabloids and media has clearly been that our recent hot summers and extreme weather events are directly linked to GW and there is plenty written just check the BBC website archived news to see it. Maybe those that dismiss AGW are stupid but there are millions and millions of them, it is the AGW suppporter who cannot ignore them when is this penny going to drop?

[parmenides3]

Oh come on Maggie, the suggestion from the tabloids and media has clearly been that our recent hot summers and extreme weather events are directly linked to GW and there is plenty written just check the BBC website archived news to see it. Maybe those that dismiss AGW are stupid but there are millions and millions of them, it is the AGW suppporter who cannot ignore them when is this penny going to drop?

Excuse me for being dense, but aren't the recent years of warming evidence of GW? Whilst it is strictly correct to say that no one weather extreme, like a hot Summer, can be attributed directly to any one cause (because of systemic variability), a trend such as the one we have seen in the UK over the past twenty years looks fairly unequivocal to me. I agree that the media hyping every hot day is not constructive, but I don't agree with your estimates for the number of people who are skeptical of AGW; the number of these people is shrinking every year, and represents a minority with ever-decreasing influence, even in the USA.

Once again, we are hearing about 'supporters' and 'skeptics', as if this is some kind of a contest; why do we insist on seeing it this way? It isn't constructive. Will somebody who is skeptical actually provide me with one piece of proper evidence supporting their skepticism? Until they do (and they can't - it doesn't exist), I have to assume that skepticism is no more than a personally-held opinion.

:)P

[jethro]

Excuse me for being dense, but aren't the recent years of warming evidence of GW? Whilst it is strictly correct to say that no one weather extreme, like a hot Summer, can be attributed directly to any one cause (because of systemic variability), a trend such as the one we have seen in the UK over the past twenty years looks fairly unequivocal to me. I agree that the media hyping every hot day is not constructive, but I don't agree with your estimates for the number of people who are skeptical of AGW; the number of these people is shrinking every year, and represents a minority with ever-decreasing influence, even in the USA.

Once again, we are hearing about 'supporters' and 'skeptics', as if this is some kind of a contest; why do we insist on seeing it this way? It isn't constructive. Will somebody who is skeptical actually provide me with one piece of proper evidence supporting their skepticism? Until they do (and they can't - it doesn't exist), I have to assume that skepticism is no more than a personally-held opinion.

:)P

Hang on P3, that's a bit too sweeping to get away with. It's a tad busy in my world today (builders everywhere) so I can only be brief, but the whole AGW premise hangs on Co2 being the main cause/driver and it's only a theory at that, with I hasten to add, conflicting evidence. There's loads of evidence that many, many factors influence our climate with mountains of evidence to support it; so to say there is no evidence, it doesn't exist, is at the very least misleading. The root of my scepticism and I'm sure I'm not alone here, is the proportion of our contribution to AGW not the existence or otherwise of warming. Scepticism from my point of view is about looking at the complete picture both natural and manmade contributions and trying to assess the whole.

[PersianPaladin]

Hang on P3, that's a bit too sweeping to get away with. It's a tad busy in my world today (builders everywhere) so I can only be brief, but the whole AGW premise hangs on Co2 being the main cause/driver and it's only a theory at that, with I hasten to add, conflicting evidence. There's loads of evidence that many, many factors influence our climate with mountains of evidence to support it; so to say there is no evidence, it doesn't exist, is at the very least misleading. The root of my scepticism and I'm sure I'm not alone here, is the proportion of our contribution to AGW not the existence or otherwise of warming. Scepticism from my point of view is about looking at the complete picture both natural and manmade contributions and trying to assess the whole.

If we can destroy most of life on earth with our nuclear weapons....then we can pretty well knock the greenhouse gas ratio past its tipping-point and create serious imbalances within un-natural timeframes.

In other words.....we can Lettuce onions up quite easily. Although the earth will make us pay for it eventually.

Edited September 28, 2007 by PersianPaladin

[The Eagle]

Excuse me for being dense, but aren't the recent years of warming evidence of GW? Warming, yes. AGW, no. Dont ignore the earths natural climate cycle in your assertions. Otherwise your being economical with the truth.

[jethro]

If we can destroy most of life on earth with our nuclear weapons....then we can pretty well knock the greenhouse gas ratio past its tipping-point and create serious imbalances within un-natural timeframes.

In other words.....we can Lettuce onions up quite easily. Although the earth will make us pay for it eventually.

Having the ability to do something doesn't mean we have, or will, though does it.

[PersianPaladin]

Excuse me for being dense, but aren't the recent years of warming evidence of GW? Warming, yes. AGW, no. Dont ignore the earths natural climate cycle in your assertions. Otherwise your being economical with the truth.

But when it sticks out like a sore anamolous thumb amidst the peaks and troughs on the warming scale of the last few hundred years....I think there is more to it than a 'natural' warming. We are part of nature remember...and to say that we haven't affected it or had a very large influence on the natural cycles is perhaps to deny an important aspect of reality.

[parmenides3]

Hang on P3, that's a bit too sweeping to get away with. It's a tad busy in my world today (builders everywhere) so I can only be brief, but the whole AGW premise hangs on Co2 being the main cause/driver and it's only a theory at that, with I hasten to add, conflicting evidence. There's loads of evidence that many, many factors influence our climate with mountains of evidence to support it; so to say there is no evidence, it doesn't exist, is at the very least misleading. The root of my scepticism and I'm sure I'm not alone here, is the proportion of our contribution to AGW not the existence or otherwise of warming. Scepticism from my point of view is about looking at the complete picture both natural and manmade contributions and trying to assess the whole.

Hi jethro. This is from the IPCC AR4 chapter on detection and attribution of climate change, executive summary [my highlights]:

Human-induced warming of the climate system is

widespread. Anthropogenic warming of the climate system can

be detected in temperature observations taken at the surface,

in the troposphere and in the oceans. Multi-signal detection

and attribution analyses, which quantify the contributions

of different natural and anthropogenic forcings to observed

changes, show that greenhouse gas forcing alone during the

past half century would likely have resulted in greater than the

observed warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling

effect from aerosol and other forcings.

It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that the global pattern of

warming during the past half century can be explained without

external forcing, and very unlikely that it is due to known

natural external causes alone. The warming occurred in both the

ocean and the atmosphere and took place at a time when natural

external forcing factors would likely have produced cooling.

Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the

observed global warming over the last 50 years. This conclusion

takes into account observational and forcing uncertainty, and

the possibility that the response to solar forcing could be

underestimated by climate models. It is also robust to the use

of different climate models, different methods for estimating

the responses to external forcing and variations in the analysis

technique.

So, this seems to be what we are considering here. The first point I want to make is that the role of CO2 relative to other forcings has been analysed, and the conclusions take the analysis into account; in other words, even allowing for the possibility that something may have been overlooked, it is still 'very likely' (90%+) that GHGs have caused most of the warming over the last 50 years.

Contrary to what you say, I do not ignore the evidence of other factors influencing the climate, and neither do the IPCC. The conclusions about the role of CO2 take these into account, and are robust even allowing for the uncertainties.

The relevant section of the IPCC AR4 is 84 pages long: I can provide a link to the pdf if you want. It does what you ask for; it takes into account all of the possible natural variables, as well as the uncertainties about attribution, and still reaches the conclusion that CO2 is the biggest single contributor to GW, and that the ECS is something around 3C.

I would suggest, then, that whilst your scepticism is not unreasonable, it is founded on a misapprehension of how the IPCC has reached this conclusion, and what factors it has taken into account. The strong statements about the role of CO2 are not indications that other factors are being ignored, but instead, a reflection of the strong conclusions of the science after all the evidence has been considered.

Regards,

:)P

Edit; just in case you have nothing better to do this weekend (ha ha!): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

:)P

Edited September 28, 2007 by parmenides3

[jethro]

Hi jethro. This is from the IPCC AR4 chapter on detection and attribution of climate change, executive summary [my highlights]:

So, this seems to be what we are considering here. The first point I want to make is that the role of CO2 relative to other forcings has been analysed, and the conclusions take the analysis into account; in other words, even allowing for the possibility that something may have been overlooked, it is still 'very likely' (90%+) that GHGs have caused most of the warming over the last 50 years.

Contrary to what you say, I do not ignore the evidence of other factors influencing the climate, and neither do the IPCC. The conclusions about the role of CO2 take these into account, and are robust even allowing for the uncertainties.

The relevant section of the IPCC AR4 is 84 pages long: I can provide a link to the pdf if you want. It does what you ask for; it takes into account all of the possible natural variables, as well as the uncertainties about attribution, and still reaches the conclusion that CO2 is the biggest single contributor to GW, and that the ECS is something around 3C.

I would suggest, then, that whilst your scepticism is not unreasonable, it is founded on a misapprehension of how the IPCC has reached this conclusion, and what factors it has taken into account. The strong statements about the role of CO2 are not indications that other factors are being ignored, but instead, a reflection of the strong conclusions of the science after all the evidence has been considered.

Regards,

:)P

Edit; just in case you have nothing better to do this weekend (ha ha!): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

:)P

I've got to be quick, so as brief as I can possibly make it; I do understand the IPCC report and all it's taken into account but at no point as far as I can remember, does it address the issue of whether or not Co2 leads temperature increases or lags behind. I think I'm right in saying the jury is still out on this one? It also has quite large gaps in synoptic patterns/drivers included in their model predictions; that's just two which spring instantly to mind. A couple of others which have come to light since the last IPPC report are the ocean burps and vastly more underwater volcanos than thought possible; there are questions, one of the biggest ones is their claimed degree of certainty.

Nothing better to do this weekend...oh I wish but if I can find a big cupboard with a lock on the inside, I'll have a gander.

[Bobby]

Oh come on Maggie, the suggestion from the tabloids and media has clearly been that our recent hot summers and extreme weather events are directly linked to GW and there is plenty written just check the BBC website archived news to see it. Maybe those that dismiss AGW are stupid but there are millions and millions of them, it is the AGW suppporter who cannot ignore them when is this penny going to drop?

I said that the media don't say that every year will be the warmer than the other, and if they do, they are wrong. Some of them are indeed putting a certain event down to the global warming, but if they say that, they are also wrong. It's probably only the tabloid newspapers that do this though, a decent intelligent source says that a hot summer, for example, is simply a sign of the future, and that global warming is an underlying factor which will make such hot summers more frequent and more potent in the future. Saying this would be a much more accurate way to put it.

And where did I say that AGW sceptics are stupid? I just said that those who say that a cool few months is reason to dismiss AGW as stupid. If they want to question it through some legitimate means, fair enough, but saying that a cool summer means that AGW is a myth is just nonsense, even the sceptics would agree with that I think.

Apart from WIB perhaps.

[parmenides3]

I've got to be quick, so as brief as I can possibly make it; I do understand the IPCC report and all it's taken into account but at no point as far as I can remember, does it address the issue of whether or not Co2 leads temperature increases or lags behind. I think I'm right in saying the jury is still out on this one? It also has quite large gaps in synoptic patterns/drivers included in their model predictions; that's just two which spring instantly to mind. A couple of others which have come to light since the last IPPC report are the ocean burps and vastly more underwater volcanos than thought possible; there are questions, one of the biggest ones is their claimed degree of certainty.

Nothing better to do this weekend...oh I wish but if I can find a big cupboard with a lock on the inside, I'll have a gander.

Likewise, a quickie, as I too have a life (contrary to appearances).

The lead/lag 'issue': some people have tried to claim that CO2 doesn't force temperature change because the historic record suggest that it followed it. These people overlook the fact that the forcing of temperature by CO2 is a known piece of physics, and that, whether it came first or second in the past doesn't matter for us; in the past, when it appeared, it forced temperature, and the same is true in the present, the difference being that we haven't waited for temperatures to go up, but have added the forcing ourselves. This is well understood, and so isn't discussed in the IPCC, because it isn't an issue, in spite of what some websites (falsely) try to claim.

Gaps in model outputs: yep, they don't model everything equally well, which makes some aspects of climate prediction rather uncertain. But they do model temperature changes well, and they have done so since the first, relatively simple, models came out twenty years ago. And if they are reasonably good at this, and they show that, regardless of other considerations, this particular projection is robust to all variability (and it appears to be), then the confidence that we will see the trend in global warming continuing for decades at least is appropriately very high indeed.

I remeber the ocean burps being mentioned in passing but you'll have to remind me about this hypothesis. On the underwater volcanoes idea, in essence, the hypothesis lacks any supporting evidence, and even if there were all these volcanoes which the USGS had missed, there's not evidence of the right kind of mechanisms or trends to explain the global changes in climate; it's a much weaker hypothesis than AGW, with some iomportant questions to answer before it is taken at all seriously.

You say this: '...one of the biggest ones is their claimed degree of certainty...' Sorry; you'll need to be more precise; about what? If you mean the claimed degree of 'certainty' that we are changing the climate, mostly by adding CO2, I'd remind you that the scientists originally wanted to make this 'extremely likely' (95%+), but the political representatives insisted that this be watered down to 'very likely' (90%+); so in this instance, the IPCC is not exaggerating scientists' confidence, but downplaying it.

Enjoy your home-making weekend...

:)P

[laserguy]

Alright,it's a few years in the future and even the most sceptical have succumbed and now accept that it is indeed our wicked ways which have got us into this mess. Now what? Er,nothing really. We'll still need our cars and trains and buses. Perhaps they'll have been tweaked to do an extra mile per gallon by then. Big deal. Televisions are no longer fitted with standby functions;they're either on or they're not. And we're using less electricity because we've all got low wattage bulbs (conventional bulbs are being phased out right now,we won't be able to buy them come 2012). Whatever seeds of climate mankind has allegedly planted over his industrialised past germinated years ago and they're past the sapling stage,can't stop it. Meanwhile,governments are happy because we're all gladly paying most of our income in some sort of tax in order to save the planet and we're using less precious energy. Brilliant!

Back to the first sentence,what mess? When we see that actually nothing has changed we'll all be patting ourselves on the back because all our efforts have obviously been successful. I am sure that Western governments aren't really bothered what happens in undeveloped countries if predictions of dire climate change do come off,regardless of its cause. What's the worst that could happen to the UK? Would our weather be really so unagreeable? No,it would just be different. So what's the deal? I expect someone will now produce a graphic to show how much coastline will be innundated with seawater to illustrate,but those who wouldn't be affected won't care. All these people who took part in the survey who said that they accept that human activity is causing climate change-what are they doing about it? Whatever it is,they are wasting their time and effort. Token gestures achieve nothing. Would government be happy for us all to pack up work and leisure,go live in a tent and exist on lentils we've grown under the awning? Regarding the survey,I come across lots of new faces at work and often the weather crops up in conversation (hey,it's the British obsession,right!),and I can honestly say that I have never come across anyone who believes climate change exists,anthropogenic or otherwise. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant,it is demonstrating a perception. Young people have nothing to compare current weather with,and older folk say whatever we get (like the summer just gone) is nothing new. I live in South Yorkshire,which was very badly affected during the first bout of flooding this summer. For weeks it was never off the news,but the older generation were wondering what the fuss was about,they'd seen it all before.

As I said in my previous post,the reason for climate change apathy is simple and well-founded;most people (in my experience ) don't believe it,don't care anyway what the weather does because it's just something we deal with,and there are much more immediate things to worry about which are of very real concern. If you were stood on the railway track and there was a train coming at you,albeit a few miles distant and you'd got an extremely troublesome stone in your shoe,you'd deal with the stone first. Don't know why you'd be stood on the track in the first place,but you get the point!

Me,I just live a honest life and treat others with the respect I expect in return. We've got six cats which I fully expect the government to tax sometime soon. Extravagance and waste isn't in my vocabulary (even though I've just said it,hmm),I go to work,pay the bills and just get on with it. I suspect the vast majority of people are the same,and every time they hear someone banging on about climate change they feel like throwing their arms in the air and screaming "what do you actually want us to DO"??. Shall we all stop buying things that aren't essential,stop taking holidays,driving the car etc? Course not,the country would be bankrupt in a week!

[Bobby]

Alright,it's a few years in the future and even the most sceptical have succumbed and now accept that it is indeed our wicked ways which have got us into this mess. Now what? Er,nothing really. We'll still need our cars and trains and buses. Perhaps they'll have been tweaked to do an extra mile per gallon by then. Big deal. Televisions are no longer fitted with standby functions;they're either on or they're not. And we're using less electricity because we've all got low wattage bulbs (conventional bulbs are being phased out right now,we won't be able to buy them come 2012). Whatever seeds of climate mankind has allegedly planted over his industrialised past germinated years ago and they're past the sapling stage,can't stop it. Meanwhile,governments are happy because we're all gladly paying most of our income in some sort of tax in order to save the planet and we're using less precious energy. Brilliant!

Back to the first sentence,what mess? When we see that actually nothing has changed we'll all be patting ourselves on the back because all our efforts have obviously been successful. I am sure that Western governments aren't really bothered what happens in undeveloped countries if predictions of dire climate change do come off,regardless of its cause. What's the worst that could happen to the UK? Would our weather be really so unagreeable? No,it would just be different. So what's the deal? I expect someone will now produce a graphic to show how much coastline will be innundated with seawater to illustrate,but those who wouldn't be affected won't care. All these people who took part in the survey who said that they accept that human activity is causing climate change-what are they doing about it? Whatever it is,they are wasting their time and effort. Token gestures achieve nothing. Would government be happy for us all to pack up work and leisure,go live in a tent and exist on lentils we've grown under the awning? Regarding the survey,I come across lots of new faces at work and often the weather crops up in conversation (hey,it's the British obsession,right!),and I can honestly say that I have never come across anyone who believes climate change exists,anthropogenic or otherwise. Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant,it is demonstrating a perception. Young people have nothing to compare current weather with,and older folk say whatever we get (like the summer just gone) is nothing new. I live in South Yorkshire,which was very badly affected during the first bout of flooding this summer. For weeks it was never off the news,but the older generation were wondering what the fuss was about,they'd seen it all before.

As I said in my previous post,the reason for climate change apathy is simple and well-founded;most people (in my experience ) don't believe it,don't care anyway what the weather does because it's just something we deal with,and there are much more immediate things to worry about which are of very real concern. If you were stood on the railway track and there was a train coming at you,albeit a few miles distant and you'd got an extremely troublesome stone in your shoe,you'd deal with the stone first. Don't know why you'd be stood on the track in the first place,but you get the point!

Me,I just live a honest life and treat others with the respect I expect in return. We've got six cats which I fully expect the government to tax sometime soon. Extravagance and waste isn't in my vocabulary (even though I've just said it,hmm),I go to work,pay the bills and just get on with it. I suspect the vast majority of people are the same,and every time they hear someone banging on about climate change they feel like throwing their arms in the air and screaming "what do you actually want us to DO"??. Shall we all stop buying things that aren't essential,stop taking holidays,driving the car etc? Course not,the country would be bankrupt in a week!

There's a lot of truth in that post. I think people will only become green when they are forced to, i.e., until they are out of a job, inflation is at 200% a year, they can't drive their car because the petrol stations are dry, and if they weren't, they could really afford it - and they can't afford to pay the bills for their 5 TV's and 5 computers. This will happen one day whether we like it or not. This extravagant lifestyle cannot and will not go on forever.

[Gray-Wolf]

However 'Orwellian' the past 2 posts were I have to agree with there timber, the future does indeed 'belong to the proles'.

I take it the previous posters would agree that there is no point (should such an event occur) in tempting mass hysteria/panic/anarchy if we had proof positive that our way of being was under imminent threat. In those circumstances it would make far more sense (and be a greater 'kindness') to keep folk as blind as possible until the final 'coup-de-grace' was upon them.

To then sort out what was left 6 months later would seem the more prudent way for 'the powers that be' to keep control in such an event than to give 'full disclosure' of the imminent situation. In the U.S. (where there is more than one gun per citizen....and that includes infants) it would seem even more prudent to keep the waters as muddy as possible until there is no doubt in what is occurring. Ignorance, is indeed ,bliss.

Edited September 28, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

However 'Orwellian' the past 2 posts were I have to agree with there timber, the future does indeed 'belong to the proles'.

I take it the previous posters would agree that there is no point (should such an event occur) in tempting mass hysteria/panic/anarchy if we had proof positive that our way of being was under imminent threat. In those circumstances it would make far more sense (and be a greater 'kindness') to keep folk as blind as possible until the final 'coup-de-grace' was upon them.

To then sort out what was left 6 months later would seem the more prudent way for 'the powers that be' to keep control in such an event than to give 'full disclosure' of the imminent situation. In the U.S. (where there is more than one gun per citizen....and that includes infants) it would seem even more prudent to keep the waters as muddy as possible until there is no doubt in what is occurring. Ignorance, is indeed ,bliss.

Well I can't disagree with any of that,GW. I believe that all the hoo-haa over AGW is twin barrelled;to condition us into getting used to being careful with energy to eke it out,and also a smokescreen to distract us from the awful reality of the collapse that is surely coming. Whatever climate change has in store and regardless of it's cause it is as nothing compared to what's to come.

[Gray-Wolf]

Well I can't disagree with any of that,GW. I believe that all the hoo-haa over AGW is twin barrelled;to condition us into getting used to being careful with energy to eke it out,and also a smokescreen to distract us from the awful reality of the collapse that is surely coming. Whatever climate change has in store and regardless of it's cause it is as nothing compared to what's to come.

And I believe that that is the one thing that most (in the developed world)choose to be totally removed from (as it is that which did for every other past 'civilisation') our own dependence on others for our own day to day continuance. It does not take very much (less than the old '2 weeks and no bread') for us here in cloud cuckoo land to fall back to the harsh reality of food, water, warmth, sanitation ,medicine.

Ah well , let them rant on......

[Bobby]

However 'Orwellian' the past 2 posts were I have to agree with there timber, the future does indeed 'belong to the proles'.

I take it the previous posters would agree that there is no point (should such an event occur) in tempting mass hysteria/panic/anarchy if we had proof positive that our way of being was under imminent threat. In those circumstances it would make far more sense (and be a greater 'kindness') to keep folk as blind as possible until the final 'coup-de-grace' was upon them.

To then sort out what was left 6 months later would seem the more prudent way for 'the powers that be' to keep control in such an event than to give 'full disclosure' of the imminent situation. In the U.S. (where there is more than one gun per citizen....and that includes infants) it would seem even more prudent to keep the waters as muddy as possible until there is no doubt in what is occurring. Ignorance, is indeed ,bliss.

I agree with that. Perhaps there is a bit of denial about it all too.

[Stratos Ferric]

I think this summer has really put the green lobby on the back foot. Have not heard anything about GW on the news in the last few weeks and rightly so. Like all fads its come to an end.

Darkman, somewhere in that piece there's a clue to the motive driving the author: I'll give you a litle clue, the sentence in question includes reference to a knock on the door.

I have said it time and over on here, and the fact that one must do so actually makes me understand why Al Gore titled the film as he did. There are, I sense, two strong GW sceptical camps on N-W; riding the same bus for different reasons. One camp doesn't like the notion of warming because it is eroding their childhood obsession with snow and witer weather. The other resents the fact that there may well be a price to be paid for stopping the climate change. I suspect your author falls firmly into the latter camp. The green agenda is great for people, so long as THEY don't have to give anything up. It was ever thus.

Is the agenda falling off the radar: it will come and go. The parallel is the short term flux in our own weather, and, the frankly stupid observations made by some people - e.g. Terry Wogan - and occasionally mirrored on here, that because we've had a disappointing summer GW canot exist. Where were these same people last June (226) when they ought, by the same logic, to have been hollering that warming was running out of control?

All that an article like this shows is that people who know little about the substance of a subject cherry pick for theor own convenience, and the average reader, being at least as ignorant, will be swayed largely according to their own starting bias.

Well I can't disagree with any of that,GW. I believe that all the hoo-haa over AGW is twin barrelled;to condition us into getting used to being careful with energy to eke it out,and also a smokescreen to distract us from the awful reality of the collapse that is surely coming. Whatever climate change has in store and regardless of it's cause it is as nothing compared to what's to come.

Not necessarily, and hence why collective action still makes sense. The technocrats argument will be that we will find a way around the problem, but as with all such examples through history, we have had to reach near crisis point before anything has been done.

In a strange way, AGW may just be nature's own feedback loop to protect the planet. We are, after all, a finite resource, and we cannot continue growing the population indefinitely. Sooner or later something would have to happen to force a slowdown, stop, or reversal. The fact that at the margins man gets ever cleverer at prolonging life just dame the problem up so that, when it breaks, the crash is likely to be even ore catastrophic.

[Stratos Ferric]

No,it would just be different. So what's the deal? I expect someone will now produce a graphic to show how much coastline will be innundated with seawater to illustrate,but those who wouldn't be affected won't care. ...

A-ha, indeed, but I sense you're taking a too simple view LG.

Say our coastline is inundated, and it changes fairly quickly - just say. Sure, the burghers of Hull, London, Liverpool, Peterborough, Kings Lynn and Norfolk just have to move. But move where? Who builds the houses. And all that food that arrives in the UK by sea, and the other heavy goods: coal, pig iron, cars, machinery...once the ports like Felixstowe, Liverpool and Avonmouth are inundated, how does freight get unloaded? It can't all be flown in. Petrol-oil may not be landed at Milford Haven, so how will we power our cars, and with no coal, and oil now being imported - or not - what keeps the conventionally powered turbines spinning in the generation plants? And we flood the fens, we loose one of our big larders - grain, along with all the other commodities, is now harder to land: how do we put bread on the table, even if we had the power to get the ovens warm. And if the sea level has risen here, then I do believe it's also risen in New York, Washington, Ostend, Rotterdam, along the Rhine and through the Ruhr, widely across the great deltas of the NIle, Mississippi, Brahmaputra, Yangtze, Ganges...

Modern life is not a collection of neatly ordered silos; this is not some war film where a submarine, holed, can simply close a door in a bulkhead and seal off the damage. The world is much more interconnected. IF sea levels rise significantly, the LAST thing anyone will be able to do is avoid the consequences or feel in any way isolated from them - unless you happen to be a huntinig and gathering tribe, and even then, the odds are you'll ba having to hunt and gather in new spaces.

Excuse me for being dense, but aren't the recent years of warming evidence of GW? Warming, yes. AGW, no. Dont ignore the earths natural climate cycle in your assertions. Otherwise your being economical with the truth.

If you so smart Darkman can you explain why we're warming, naturally, considerably beyond the previous natural limits?

[Nick H]

If you so smart Darkman can you explain why we're warming, naturally, considerably beyond the previous natural limits?

SF, this is what I have a problem with. I do not deny this planet is experiencing a warming phase. I am also inclined to believe that human activity is at least partly to blame. Oh, and I like hot summer weather (certainly more so than cold winter weather: I wouldn't mind if it was 30C every day of the summer in London). I also don't even believe that we can definitively say that warming has yet peaked, regardless of what we saw this summer. I certainly don't buy into West is Best's silly view that two (or even three or four) average or near average months destroys the theory of AGW.

The problem is there is plenty of evidence - anecdotal and scientific - to suggest the world has been warmer for long periods during the distant past. I do not therefore accept that we are "warming...considerably beyond the previous natural limits". I do think that this is one of the reasons why some are sceptical of the whole AGW thing, when (to be blunt) exaggerations like this are made. There is no need to do this, though I suspect it is perhaps designed to counter the equally, and possible more, ludicrous claims of the climate change naysayers.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Nick H

[Devonian]

SF, this is what I have a problem with. I do not deny this planet is experiencing a warming phase. I am also inclined to believe that human activity is at least partly to blame. Oh, and I like hot summer weather (certainly more so than cold winter weather: I wouldn't mind if it was 30C every day of the summer in London).

The problem is there is plenty of evidence - anecdotal and scientific - to suggest the world has been warmer for long periods during the distant past. I do not therefore accept that we are "warming...considerably beyond the previous natural limits". I do think that this is one of the reasons why some are sceptical of the whole AGW thing, when (to be blunt) exaggerations like this are made. There is no need to do this, though I suspect it is perhaps designed to counter the equally, and possible more, ludicrous claims of the climate change naysayers.

But, you have to compare apples with apples. If you compare now with 'the distant past' you are comparing apples and oranges climate wise. Now, yes, there were times in the distant past warmer than now, but the whole planetary climate make up was different - continents/ocean currents for a very important start - which meant the climate base line was warmer in those warmer times.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

There's a lot for me to catch up on on this thread, I see, especially with regards to some of P3's posts. (I've been far too concerned with the Netweather Council stuff, and I've been remiss in my attention to the issue of climate change.) Perhaps it would be more appropriate to respond to those posts on a more technical thread, so for now I shall just reply to this:

But, you have to compare apples with apples. If you compare now with 'the distant past' you are comparing apples and oranges climate wise. Now, yes, there were times in the distant past warmer than now, but the whole planetary climate make up was different - continents/ocean currents for a very important start - which meant the climate base line was warmer in those warmer times.

I don't think it's really comparing apples with oranges - it's more like comparing Granny Smith's with Cox's Golden Pippins, in that there are subtle (though detectable) differences, but overall the two are constructed along the same blueprints. Just because the climate behaviour may have been slightly different doesn't mean that the climate sytem was.

CB