Environmental agenda is slipping off the radar screen

[HighPressure]

Sometimes I wonder about the circular nature of the conversations on these threads, they nearly always seem to come around to a straight fight between AGW believers and Sceptics. I worry about the lack of depth in these discussions, there are simple people out there on both sides who just want to bring the same old arguments back so we go around and around.

There are several different facets to this entire debate of which media and the publics perception is vital part, how we then get around to a discussion about the same old science arguments of GW and AGW is beyond me.

I feel that the subject has not as such slipped from the radar screen, but anyone who reads the same mud slinging, claim and counter claim day in day is going to get tired of the subject. A genuinely believe that most people even if they are sceptics for whatever reason would back moves to reduce CO2 emissions including myself. The problem is not really the science but although still open to debate but the complete has of message delivery to the populous and hijacking by who ever thinks taking a stance one way or another will help their cause.

I do not usually agree with Mr Bush but when he said yesterday a new way forward was needed I think he is totally right. Even if you are happy with the IPCC and their findings, the biggest Countries in the world are not and there is no point just slinging mud at them as you need an agreement which encompasses all so you may have to accept compromise of a different route. As for complete non-belivers you only exist to throw spanners in the works with no real proven arguments against at least some human effect on climate you are in the minority but are given a lifeline but the woeful effects of believers to put a coherent case that includes message delivery not just the science.

It would be interesting to have a discussion on the way forward as I think we are lost, but I would add this should not be a scientific debate?

[Devonian]

Sometimes I wonder about the circular nature of the conversations on these threads, they nearly always seem to come around to a straight fight between AGW believers and Sceptics. I worry about the lack of depth in these discussions, there are simple people out there on both sides who just want to bring the same old arguments back so we go around and around.

There are several different facets to this entire debate of which media and the publics perception is vital part, how we then get around to a discussion about the same old science arguments of GW and AGW is beyond me.

I feel that the subject has not as such slipped from the radar screen, but anyone who reads the same mud slinging, claim and counter claim day in day is going to get tired of the subject. A genuinely believe that most people even if they are sceptics for whatever reason would back moves to reduce CO2 emissions including myself. The problem is not really the science but although still open to debate but the complete has of message delivery to the populous and hijacking by who ever thinks taking a stance one way or another will help their cause.

I do not usually agree with Mr Bush but when he said yesterday a new way forward was needed I think he is totally right. Even if you are happy with the IPCC and their findings, the biggest Countries in the world are not and there is no point just slinging mud at them as you need an agreement which encompasses all so you may have to accept compromise of a different route. As for complete non-belivers you only exist to throw spanners in the works with no real proven arguments against at least some human effect on climate you are in the minority but are given a lifeline but the woeful effects of believers to put a coherent case that includes message delivery not just the science.

It would be interesting to have a discussion on the way forward as I think we are lost, but I would add this should not be a scientific debate?

It would. What would a coherent case look like?

[HighPressure]

It would. What would a coherent case look like?

One which allows the debate to move forward taking with it the will of both the people and all major industrial nations on the planet, one yet to be found!

[Devonian]

One which allows the debate to move forward taking with it the will of both the people and all major industrial nations on the planet, one yet to be found!

Right! Why? Because, if you try to be honest people don't like what they hear.

So, People like me have to decide if we're to be less honest but for better effect? What do you think we should do?

You'll know criticism is easy, solutions not.

[HighPressure]

Right! Why? Because, if you try to be honest people don't like what they hear.

So, People like me have to decide if we're to be less honest but for better effect? What do you think we should do?

You'll know criticism is easy, solutions not.

I am not offering a solution, that can only be found by consensus which often requires compromise to move forward or you will be having the same arguments in 20yrs time and that helps no one. At least the US are now recognising a problem and I think their suggestion of a new way forward is worthy of a try even if it does mean you as an IPCC supporter do not get all you desire. Even if you are 100% right sometimes in life you have to look for a new way to go about your objectives and swallow what maybe a bitter pill for you, but if in the end if it achieves more than you are currently then surely its a worthy road?

Edited September 29, 2007 by HighPressure

[parmenides3]

HP: what sort of compromise are you thinking about? Almost every government and most branches of industry now recognise and are engaging with the problem of global CO2 emissions, apart from four or five, the single most important of which is the USA. They are doing this because there is nothing much to do a deal about; if Bush was right in his speech yesterday, and global demand for energy is set to rise by 50% by 2030 in response to economic growth, then failing to agree to meaningful and binding international emissions targets will more or less condemn us, by the estimates, to at least 3C, and possibly more, warming in the next few decades. Everyone agrees this is a 'bad thing', and everyone agress that we can do something about it, so the only compromise that will cause any real breakthrough will have to be made by the USA.

:)P

[HighPressure]

HP: what sort of compromise are you thinking about? Almost every government and most branches of industry now recognise and are engaging with the problem of global CO2 emissions, apart from four or five, the single most important of which is the USA. They are doing this because there is nothing much to do a deal about; if Bush was right in his speech yesterday, and global demand for energy is set to rise by 50% by 2030 in response to economic growth, then failing to agree to meaningful and binding international emissions targets will more or less condemn us, by the estimates, to at least 3C, and possibly more, warming in the next few decades. Everyone agrees this is a 'bad thing', and everyone agress that we can do something about it, so the only compromise that will cause any real breakthrough will have to be made by the USA.

:)P

Hi P3

Don't get me wrong I am not saying its going to be an easy road and this is a job for very skilled diplomats. But in essence I don't disagree with you, the USA are used to be our global leaders they like to be at the head of everything. Just like dealing with your boss you always make out he had the idea even though you fed it to him Yes they will have to compromise and I think they will but they don't want targets set by others as they see that be out of their control and they don't like that. Lets face it we are not going to meet our targets either so other then bench marks they are not really of much use, I don't subscribe to international carbon credits as that to me is just a corruption. You also have to accept the world as it is a realise just how difficult its going to be for the USA especially, to cut emissions the only hope we have is to work with them rather than nag them so to speak.

The compromise is allowing the US and others to sign up to global treaty's without targets and the progress maybe slower than many would like but overal I think we will be in a better position then we are without the US onboard?

[parmenides3]

Maybe, maybe not. If even the US Military recognise the risks associated with climate change (not renowned for being liberal-minded), and if the energy, banking and insurance businesses all have plans and recommendations in place, all that is missing is the international political agreement.

Clearly, the Bush administration wants their policy to be guided by their business leaders, as is the norm, and wants to find a technological 'magic bullet', rather than do anything to 'threaten' its own economy. OTOH, some analysts are fairly clear that emissions reductions now will cost less and cause less trouble than any other existing response, and this includes any possible policy for adaptation. If one was to be truly cynical, one might suggest that it would be in the USA's long-term interest for climate change to continue at its current rate; this would help solve the so-called 'population time-bomb' problem, and destabilsation elsewhere would strengtehn the US's authority and position, which is currently not in the best of health. A few trillion dollar arms-for-oil deals could really boost their economy...

:)P

[HighPressure]

There is no greater cynic than me, sometimes I think the scientific community forget that its not just Climate change which is complex but humanity itself as well. Putting a decent scientific case for AGW does not mean job done it has to clear all the hurdles that humanity puts in its path which include the issues you raise and there are many more such as peoples perception of their government's honesty etc etc. The US dominance is under threat from China and it will fight hard to retain its top dog status again a human trait, but we have no choice but to work with them.

Sometimes when I raise this side of the issue I get responses suggesting I am some sort of AGW apologist but this is not true. We do have to accept the world and humanity as it is and work with it, I try to point out to some that simply possessing the morale high ground does not offer a fix.

[The Eagle]

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

Id advise you to look to the past before I have to entertain you by pointing it out.

[mackerel sky]

This whole thread has imploded on itself. It discussed GW fatigue, now I have fatigue in this thread. Claim after counter claim, some well thought out, others not so. And again it has become tiresome with so many circular arguments. I understand people are passionate, but its been done several times over now in more specific threads.

I hope to be here in 40 or maybes even 50 odd years time, provided I look after myself and pack in the fags. Maybes then we can look back on it retrospectively, given a few more years statistics. Doomsday is not upon us yet.

Most reasonably well informed people with a modicum of concern or not could throw their hat into this conversation and repeat the same stance over and over again. Its getting dull. Which easily parodies the whole thread and idea behind it. Isn't that ironic, don't you think?

Edited September 30, 2007 by mackerel sky

[mackerel sky]

We have an obligation to be cautious. Anyone who cares about the future should be. But I believe its too early to get carried away, statistically or media fed. This thread wasn't about GW scepticism, it was about being bored to the back teeth about hearing about it and having it rammed down our necks 24/7 and how that reflects on the general publics perception. Or have I got it badly wrong...? Instead I have to wade through pages of the same old stuff repeated time and again, which has nothing to do with the actual question being posed and makes the creator of the thread some kind of antichrist because he dared posed whether people are getting sick of the GW debate.

Edited September 30, 2007 by mackerel sky

[West is Best]

I sat in on a Year 8 school citzenship class this week on the subject of climate change. I was a neutral observer at the back, so no input from me! A straw poll of the pupils showed half the class were cynical about climate change thinking it was a natural cycle. Another quarter thought it was man-made but that it was completely pointless trying to do anything about it when China churns out pollution. Barely 1/4 of the class were bothered enough to think we should try to live greener lives.

The climate change bandwagon are in danger of causing an enormous backfire because:

1. They have tried to blank out the counter-arguments in a quasi religious manner

2. They have allowed, and sometimes fuelled, the media to make ludicrous claims

3. They have failed to provide full scientific back-up

4. They have themselves made spurious claims and links, especially about extreme weather events

5. They have targetted individuals in the west instead of large industrial polluters

[Devonian]

Id advise you to look to the past before I have to entertain you by pointing it out.

Go back to when the Isthmus of Panama was open and you'd find different ocean currents. Go back to when ocean current could circulate the globe unimpeded, and you have a time when water cold re circulate and heat up more and water that eventually made it to the poles was warmer and thus the poles far warmer (hence the great heat at times in the Cretaceous).

No, as I said before, you have to compare like climate times with like climate times - effectively now with recent history. You simply haughtily dismissing the warmth of now with a 'oh, it was warmer in the past' type reply wont work with those who know something about the past

I sat in on a Year 8 school citzenship class this week on the subject of climate change. I was a neutral observer at the back, so no input from me! A straw poll of the pupils showed half the class were cynical about climate change thinking it was a natural cycle. Another quarter thought it was man-made but that it was completely pointless trying to do anything about it when China churns out pollution. Barely 1/4 of the class were bothered enough to think we should try to live greener lives.

The climate change bandwagon are in danger of causing an enormous backfire because:

1. They have tried to blank out the counter-arguments in a quasi religious manner

2. They have allowed, and sometimes fuelled, the media to make ludicrous claims

3. They have failed to provide full scientific back-up

4. They have themselves made spurious claims and links, especially about extreme weather events

5. They have targetted individuals in the west instead of large industrial polluters

Erm, I'd like to see one example where someone with a science background (rather than some media hack) has done any of those.

So, please provide an example of each of the five.

[Devonian]

We have an obligation to be cautious. Anyone who cares about the future should be. But I believe its too early to get carried away, statistically or media fed. This thread wasn't about GW scepticism, it was about being bored to the back teeth about hearing about it and having it rammed down our necks 24/7 and how that reflects on the general publics perception. Or have I got it badly wrong...? Instead I have to wade through pages of the same old stuff repeated time and again, which has nothing to do with the actual question being posed and makes the creator of the thread some kind of antichrist because he dared posed whether people are getting sick of the GW debate.

Actually, the creator of the thread copied and pasted some media comment (we don't know where from, that was not said) and then made a combative statement. There was no question.

As far as I'm aware no one has come even close to making he author an antichirst - other people can think someone else wrong without thinking them the antichrist you know .

[parmenides3]

I sat in on a Year 8 school citzenship class this week on the subject of climate change. I was a neutral observer at the back, so no input from me! A straw poll of the pupils showed half the class were cynical about climate change thinking it was a natural cycle. Another quarter thought it was man-made but that it was completely pointless trying to do anything about it when China churns out pollution. Barely 1/4 of the class were bothered enough to think we should try to live greener lives.

The climate change bandwagon are in danger of causing an enormous backfire because:

1. They have tried to blank out the counter-arguments in a quasi religious manner

2. They have allowed, and sometimes fuelled, the media to make ludicrous claims

3. They have failed to provide full scientific back-up

4. They have themselves made spurious claims and links, especially about extreme weather events

5. They have targetted individuals in the west instead of large industrial polluters

WIB;

1. False. It's the skeptics and denialists who use polemic, ad-homs, disinformation and diry tricks to try to deceive the public, such as claiming that the acceptance of the science is somehow 'quasi-religious', for example; it is quite the opposite; a recognition of a rational argument as being correct or not is an application of reason itself, not an 'act of faith'.

2. False. The media has its own agenda, which is to seel copy; the exaggeration comes from the media, not the science.

3. False. how many thousands upon thousands of scientific papers do I have to link to before people recognise that the amount of work and evidence is overwhelmingly vast, completely one-sided, and by any reasonable measure, unequivocal?

4. Which climate scientists have done this? Show me. Then show me the mistakes they have made.

5. Who are you talking about here? If you are referring to our government's policies, then you are complaining about the government, which is an ebtirely different issue.

Regards,

:)P

[Roger J Smith]

I think both sides in this debate tend to be too harsh in their assessment of the other side. I say this because I am not sure how we will ever know the absolute truth of this issue.

It could continue to warm, the arctic ice pack could disappear, yet all of that could be a natural cycle, perhaps accelerated slightly by human contributions, or perhaps not at all. How do we really know?

But it could also reverse, turn colder again, and then the AGW lobby will presumably claim that this was a fortunate feedback process that saved the planet because Al Gore could not, despite his gargantuan efforts. Then I would expect the AGW lobby to be on the watch for that natural cooling cycle to accelerate towards glaciation, because they could then blame that on greenhouse gases too. Except that would be 100-200 years from now, when most people would have flipped the page and moved on.

I tend to think this is one of those situations where the general public can be smarter than the professional scientists, the other example that comes to mind is evolution's specific claim that we just accidentally descended from the primates without God's intervention. The general public have mixed views on both of these controversial theories and will continue to do so despite any level of indoctrination through the media, because frankly, the media cannot be trusted to give anything but a far-left version of events on almost any given topic, in both your country and mine. Things are somewhat more balanced in the USA which is one reason why total brainwashing will not easily take place.

When the AGW lobby ask, what will it take to convince the skeptics, the answer is pretty much, nothing can, because any amount of global warming is entirely possible through natural variation, we are after all smack in the middle of an inter-glacial and it should be warming up, it has been warmer than this in the historical past (3rd century BCE) and these are not just minor quibbles that we skeptics have with AGW, they are very reasonable alternative scenarios that the atmospheric sciences community have not been discussing adequately, in fact, they are usually derided as "myths" which seems a bit precious to me -- the evidence is quite clear for a warmer climate in the historical past, but on the other hand, I would concede that greenhouse gases must be having some effect on temperatures, whether their role is really any more than icing on the cake or not, is the real debating point.

This is not like atomic physics where you can demonstrate with great precision the exact nature of the complex theory you have developed -- this is more like a social science theory, wide open to political influences, and by its very nature given to considerable imprecision. And within that reality lies the very real possibility that we have taken our eyes off the ball on this issue, following messianic figures like Al Gore down some imaginary pathway that can only waste time and money, when the real government policy response should be planning for an inevitable sea level rise of whatever, one metre, one and a half metres, somewhere in that range, and also, looking more at particulate pollution as a target, both for human health reasons, and because in reality the science is better established there, in terms of sooty particulates (much of this from eastern Asia, by the way) changing the albedo of the arctic ice and snow and accelerating melting around the margins faster than rising temperatures might be doing. When I see this rapid meltdown of the ice north of eastern Siberia, with a prolonged southerly flow in that sector this past season, I have to wonder if the particulate transport factor is not being under-rated. It is not addressed in Kyoto and it seems like an afterthought to the AGW lobby.

[Devonian]

I think both sides in this debate tend to be too harsh in their assessment of the other side. I say this because I am not sure how we will ever know the absolute truth of this issue.

It could continue to warm, the arctic ice pack could disappear, yet all of that could be a natural cycle, perhaps accelerated slightly by human contributions, or perhaps not at all. How do we really know?

Erm, bumps in the night could be caused by 'ghosts' or 'poltergeists'? We don't really know do we. So, what we should do is collect data, test it against know scientific laws and see if it stands scrutiny. - right? AGW stand this kind of scrutiny, 'ghosts' and 'poltergeists' don't.

But it could also reverse, turn colder again, and then the AGW lobby will presumably claim that this was a fortunate feedback process that saved the planet because Al Gore could not, despite his gargantuan efforts.

Nice strawman. There is no evidence of a 'reverse'. So, to then go on to claim that the 'AGW lobby' would then argue about some feedback when the premise isn't even shown is remarkable.

The general public have mixed views on both of these controversial theories and will continue to do so despite any level of indoctrination through the media, because frankly, the media cannot be trusted to give anything but a far-left version of events on almost any given topic, in both your country and mine. Things are somewhat more balanced in the USA which is one reason why total brainwashing will not easily take place.

When the AGW lobby ask, what will it take to convince the skeptics, the answer is pretty much, nothing can,

Enough said.

[parmenides3]

Oh, Roger, there is so much in your last post to respond to...

I say this because I am not sure how we will ever know the absolute truth of this issue

Leaving aside the philosophy (what is 'truth', is it ever 'absolute'?), how do we find out anything about the world? Through observation, exploration and the application of reason. Inasmuch as these have been done, we have found out the 'truth' about GW and AGW. not the absolute, and not ther whole, but tha basic, underlying 'truth', is now established by these methods.

It could continue to warm, the arctic ice pack could disappear, yet all of that could be a natural cycle, perhaps accelerated slightly by human contributions, or perhaps not at all. How do we really know?

The analysis of causes of GW incorporates these questions. No measurement or analysis of natural cycles explains recent temperature changes. As far as these are understood, the natural cycles which are supposed to influence global temperature indicate that we should currently be in a 'cooling phase' (which answers a later comment you make, too). In theory, it is possible that some natural variation about which we know nothing and which has never even been guessed at exists, which, if discovered, would explain what has been going on for the past 100 years better than the explanation we currently have. Until such an explanation comes along, shouldn't we work on the best explanation we currently have?

I tend to think this is one of those situations where the general public can be smarter than the professional scientists

Of course, I don't agree, but I would ask you why, in this case, we should think that the professional scientists have got it so wrong? After all, pretty much everything in our society comes, directly or indirectly, from the process of analysis and discovery that has built up into what we might call 'the body of science'. Any one of the ideas in science might be shown, eventually, to need revision or rejection, but I would ask people to consider the implications of suggesting that the entirety of science, or a substantial proportion of it, is somehow based on false premisses, or errors.

The general public have mixed views on both of these controversial theories and will continue to do so despite any level of indoctrination through the media, because frankly, the media cannot be trusted to give anything but a far-left version of events on almost any given topic, in both your country and mine. Things are somewhat more balanced in the USA which is one reason why total brainwashing will not easily take place

You are suggesting here that the media are 'far-left' ('quasi-communistic'?). My experience as an analyst and teacher of Media over thirteen years suggests to me that the media tends to support the dominant ideology, rather than undermine it, so on this, I disagree with you. I also disagree that things are 'more balanced' in the USA: this is too much of a generalisation, and not, i believe, supported by the evidence.

The particulate transport matter is taken seriously, both by the IPCC and by the climate science community. The main point I would make here is that any changes in this metric are also anthropogenic in origin - they come from our activity - and as such, are just as much a part of the problem as GHG emissions. This is, however, a growing area for research, and new material is being produced on a regular basis, so the influence is being 'held open' as a scientific question at the moment. Notwithstanding this, once again, whilst such a variable is significant, there is no evidence that its importance is anywhere near as great as that of CO2 emissions.

Hope this helps...

:)P

[laserguy]

Quick comment-I'm up to my neck changing the syphon in the wc cistern at the mo!, but like a bolt from the blue it's just occured to me that although I don't suscribe to AGW theories ( but I'm still a nice person who adores cats and helps old folk across the road etc ), why on Earth would myself and millions of others take such a stance? Speaking for myself I'm not being deliberately awkward for the sake of it or trying to antagonise.What would that achieve? I feel that people such as myself are seen as mischievous mavericks who oppose AGW (or more accurately,don't accept it ) just for the hell of it. I can't see what the argument is about;no-one can argue about the benefits of reducing energy consumption and pollution,so let's just do it within the bounds of possibility. What I don't like is the constant insistence that we've caused all this and the insiduous nagging that if we don't change our ways we're all doomed courtesy of climate change. Yes it's become boring because that's all we get-nagging. I've said it time and again,the vast majority of people won't change their ways because they either don't care,don't believe it,don't see what changes they do make will be of such a magnitude to make any difference,or they are simply too set in their ways. As Magpie pointed out recently,change will only come when it is forced upon us,either by energy being so hard to come by and consequently expensive,or the governments of the world really getting to grips with things and imposing draconian measures. They won't do that though (other than crafty taxes ) because the economy would suffer.

Here in South Yorkshire,which was utterly devastated in some parts by the recent floods,there are plans to build vast new housing developments right in the worst affected areas!! To me,that is saying that the government have absolutely no confidence in their predictions that climate change will make such occurences more frequent. Clearly they aren't expecting a repeat performance anytime soon. Either that or they couldn't give a monkeys.

For the record,I would like to see a reversal to simpler,less power hungry times. If I'd got the know-how and the survival instinct to go with it I'd happily live out in the middle of nowhere with no mod-cons. But that's the problem too;people have got used to what they have now and retrogression isn't an option. That's the price of progress,I suppose. You can't put the telly on or open a newspaper without seeing an advert for the latest supercar or electronic device,then right next to it there'll be an article about climate change and how we've got to reduce the use of such things! Like advertising cigarettes then you see on the pack that these things kill you! Conflicting messages indeed.

Oh well,back to fixing the wc,which I must admit I'm having a terrible struggle with!

[Admiral_Bobski]

No, as I said before, you have to compare like climate times with like climate times - effectively now with recent history. You simply haughtily dismissing the warmth of now with a 'oh, it was warmer in the past' type reply wont work with those who know something about the past

To clarify what I was saying earlier, Devonian and others claim that you can't compare current climate with ancient climate, primarily because of the differences in land/sea distribution. Well, courtesy of UCMP Berkeley, here's some snapshots of how the continents looked in the ancient past. (Pictures taken from here: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim1.html )

Fair enough - 200 million years ago the continents looked like this; basically one big mass and one big ocean. Let's zoom forward now to 120 million years ago...

Well, the continents are starting to look a little bit more recognisable, but if you're using the "Continents were different, so climate was different and therefore incomparable" argument then you still have a pretty good case. So let's zoom forward to 60 million years ago, shortly after the demise of the dinosaurs (about four or five million years after, give or take a few):

Not that vastly different from today, is it? Okay, so the spacings are a bit different, but not so much so that climate would have been vastly different. If you start moving closer to the present day then the spacings become a bit more recognisable, and it's a fairly safe bet that just 1 million years ago there was virtually no significant difference from today's arrangement.

So, to point out warmer periods in Earth's history at any point within the last million years is not in fact so very wrong after all.

CB

[Roger J Smith]

I think my basic point was entirely glossed over -- what if the warming is natural and not anthropogenic?

How do you know for certain that it isn't? -- or to be more precise, that natural variability isn't the dominant component, because I think most researchers agree there is a combined effect here.

This possibility of dominant natural causes for the observed warming explains why I am a skeptic, and would be likely to remain one unless I see more convincing cause and effect than temporal coincidence relevant to greenhouse gases. Mind you, I am on record as saying 25-30 per cent greenhouse contribution to the overall warming, so I don't really count as a total skeptic anyway.

But, since natural variation can reverse, and fairly quickly too, what will the AGW lobby say if mean temperatures drop, and it then becomes more obvious that the recent warming has been more natural than anthropogenic (because if they drop, how could the warming have been anthropogenic, if we are still sitting at pre-2006 CO2 levels?).

I just plant this seed for future examination, but my real point here is that this issue will play out as a political and not scientific issue because it intrudes into the political sphere, and public opinion will drive policy as much as science will try to drive public opinion. If the weather does not warm up considerably where people live, this public opinion question will remain a thorny problem for the AGW lobby. Don't blame me for this, it is just human nature to be skeptical of claims that are not easy to establish. Al Gore was in Vancouver speaking last night, the media were of course gushing and blushing, but many of the ordinary folk couldn't help but notice that the past week has been unseasonably chilly and wet here. It is that sort of reality check going on month after month that will either build up confidence in AGW or undermine it -- and don't blame me if the weather doesn't match the theory. I know all about that problem.

As for my comments about the media, I took the view presented as being a very rosy interpretation ("supporting the dominant ideology") -- surely the dominant ideology is socialism in the view of the mass media, or at least left-liberalism. How many philosophical conservatives do you see on a regular basis on your television networks, or read in most of the mainstream press? My comments about the US media stand, there is a wider variety of viewpoints there. CNN is quite liberal, Fox is more conservative, for example. The daily newspapers occupy a wider spectrum too. The three main networks are fairly liberal to ultra-liberal, so really the playing field in the US is only a touch more balanced than in Canada or the UK.

Not that AGW needs to be an issue that automatically divides into political right and left. If there is a better case made, as there was for the CFC ban in the 1980s, then it will shift away from a political issue. Conservatives are as likely as liberals to believe in gravity, or atomic physics, or other more demonstrable theories.

What seems like an obvious truth to one side in this debate, seems like a dangerous delusion to the other side. I am afraid this state of affairs will continue, and dismissive comments won't change it. The skeptics have already, by and large, been ostracized and blacklisted out of the "official" science, but that doesn't make the official science valid, it just makes it more powerful. And its power to distort is growing as we hear sports stars, actors and other third parties parrotting the various caveats of the global warming theory, as though they themselves understood anything about the subject. Of course it is only trendy received information, like most of the things that are widely believed by the public today.

[PersianPaladin]

I've said before...we are part of nature and not separate from it (unless you're a bible-babbling fundamentalist). We have been influencing the climate for quite a few centuries; and will continue to do so in the future. Whether our influence is very small or large does not matter...the whole point is that there will always be an anthropogenic factor in any climatic perturbation.

[HighPressure]

I am sorry but we are back to the same old argument again, I think this thread was about the subject dropping off the radar rather than just another yes it is or oh no its not thread. Am I alone it getting so very bored of this merry go round, the debate and conversation needs to move on. I am a little skepical over just how much effect human CO2 is having on our climate but like the majority accept we are part of the equation. The science is interesting and complex, there are very few who agree 100% with current understanding even if its because they think its underplayed, and although the technical arguments will continue it should not bar us from moving forward. This means talking about such things as political agenda's, media hype and message delivery along with meaningfull action that can and should be taken to reduce our CO2. This cannot really include aruments such as we should all go back to using horse and carts or we will all fry in the fires of hell type of thing, the world we live in is the way it is wrongly or rightly we and thats all of us have to deal with it. Surely at this stage of the debate there is no room for far left or far right arguments as they only serve to stop the main body of the subject moving forward and actually just cancel eachother out leading to no action at all except mud slinging.

[Osbourne One-Nil]

Am I alone it getting so very bored of this merry go round

No, not by a long way I think.