New Iceage? Much Evidence? - Global Cooling

[Devonian]

Making up some gas samples and testing their relative absorption spectra would be great fun - much better than real work .

While looking for more detail on the physics/thermodynamics of the whole CO2 shenanigans to make sure I'm content with concepts (which I'll admit seem strange to me, i.e. that such a small component of the atmosphere could have such a huge thermal effect), I came across this:

http://brneurosci.org/co2.html

Warning - if you believe the earth is warming a bit due to CO2, then this article is fine for you. If you think it's going to get hotter and hotter/turn into a runaway warming scenario, don't read! I have not looked very very closely, but seems to be a good summary of the basic thermodynamics of the wholde thing. Conclusion is that CO2 can cause warming, but only up to a certain point. Seems sensible to me, but more time needed to satisfy myself on each point.

If you are utterly convinced about global warming and know nothing about thermodynamics, do not read this:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (B) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, © the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

I will need to give this a good read. As Scotty used to say 'But Captain, Ya canny change the laws of physics', so if runaway CO2 induced warming breaks the second law of thermodynamics - oocha that is not good news for the GW club.

EDIT:

Seems this article has physicists with their knickers in a twist:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-300667.html

Most sensible posts seem to think the paper has some value, but of course there are little mistakes which are easy to pick on without actually greatly changing conclusions and it is really more about our understanding of the 'greenhouse effect' (i.e. why having an atmosphere/oceans makes a planet warmer), which is not directly related to the CO2 induced global warming debate.

G&T? Are you saying you don't accept the greenhouse effect as it is understood?

It seems to me G&T has sunk without trace? But, maybe I'm wrong and atmosphere physics text books are being rewritten as I type? - I think not

Edit: The refutation

"In this journal, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner claim to have falsified the existence of an atmospheric greenhouse effect.1 Here, we show that their methods, logic, and conclusions are in error. Their most significant errors include trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process, and systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat flows applicable to the Earth's surface and atmosphere. They claim that radiative heat transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface is forbidden, ignoring the larger transfer in the other direction which makes the complete process allowed. Further, by ignoring heat capacity and non-radiative heat flows, they claim that radiative balance requires that the surface cool by 100 K or more at night, an obvious absurdity induced by an unphysical assumption. This comment concentrates on these two major points, while also taking note of some of Gerlich and Tscheuschner's other errors and misunderstandings."

Edited October 27, 2010 by Devonian

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

It seems to me G&T has sunk without trace? But, maybe I'm wrong and atmosphere physics text books are being rewritten as I type? - I think not

Yes, it seems the majority of physicists – at least on that forum – were against this paper. I think there were two problems here: (1) the authors did what GW people are doing in making the overly confident (almost arrogant) claim they had it all worked out and (2) to me the problem the physicist readers had with it was not that it was wrong in terms of CO2 climate change per see, but wrong in the terms of the way it describes why having an atmosphere makes our planet warmer.

There is a ‘greehouse effect’ (although this is a misnomer as the atmosphere is nothing like what happens in a greenhouse) irrespective of whether there is any CO2 or not. The question is whether variations in the very small fraction of CO2 present has a significant effect on temperature.

I have always accepted that CO2 should cause warming because that’s what I was taught at School/Uni and by Al Gore (and he knows what he’s talking about… ). However, I never went into the thermodynamics of it in detail. I’m doing that now to satisfy myself as to what I do believe and what I don’t. I know what the standard ‘greenhouse/global warming’ theory is – that’s what I’ve been taught but there are many that dispute parts of this and I need to see why they think they can do this; hence reading such controversial articles as the one mentioned.

Hopefully, I can come up with an answer for myself. This answer is one I will base on my own thoughts/knowledge of thermodynamics and not directly on what others claim or what is considered the ‘consensus’.

I feel my scientific career has been greatly helped by not accepting current theory/dogma as gospel; I will check these for myself if I’m not satisfied about aspects. Currently, I have a project based on ignoring 20 years of dogma and doing it my own way. This has resulted in some startling discoveries. The idea was not genius, but actually rather simple. It’s just nobody had thought to try it as it went against the consensus. My sponsors (now 9 major global companies which you’d recognise the names of) now think we have to largely change our entire beliefs and that what I’m doing will become the new standard. The point is that what can seem well established and accepted by ‘experts’ the world over can actually not be the case at all.

I’m happy to post my thoughts as I go alone for those who are interested, but it is me I want to satisfy primarily.

[Devonian]

Yes, it seems the majority of physicists – at least on that forum – were against this paper. I think there were two problems here: (1) the authors did what GW people are doing in making the overly confident (almost arrogant) claim they had it all worked out and (2) to me the problem the physicist readers had with it was not that it was wrong in terms of CO2 climate change per see, but wrong in the terms of the way it describes why having an atmosphere makes our planet warmer.

Well, it's an argument but, (admirably, for it's only the first time you have and it's hard for any of us not to do), you stray into talking about character not science. I'll go there as well :winky:, and ask might it be the case there is a kind of arrogance in not accepting the accepted science wrt AGW, a science that is the product of many many decades work by smart people? And isn't there another problem in that (having watched these debates for years) it's often the case that people claiming we should question everything in fact have very strong views one way or the other. I suggest you question your view that you have to question everything - there's too much knowledge these day, too much to learn to question everything.

My view, arrogant perhaps, is G&T isn't going to change the reality about the greenhouse effect. In the last decade or two I've seen many people claim to have re written the greenhouse effect, to claim to have hammered the latest last nail into the coffin of AGW or dis-proven this bit or that bit of AGW science. Such claims loose their effect with time and endless repetition and zero confirmation ...

There is a ‘greehouse effect’ (although this is a misnomer as the atmosphere is nothing like what happens in a greenhouse) irrespective of whether there is any CO2 or not. The question is whether variations in the very small fraction of CO2 present has a significant effect on temperature.

There are Devonian rocks. But, we don't spend time going on about the name being a misnomer because there are Devonian rocks in places other than Devon

I have always accepted that CO2 should cause warming because that’s what I was taught at School/Uni and by Al Gore (and he knows what he’s talking about… ). However, I never went into the thermodynamics of it in detail. I’m doing that now to satisfy myself as to what I do believe and what I don’t. I know what the standard ‘greenhouse/global warming’ theory is – that’s what I’ve been taught but there are many that dispute parts of this and I need to see why they think they can do this; hence reading such controversial articles as the one mentioned.

How many Galileos are there out there?

Edited October 28, 2010 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Has someone disproved all of what is known about the spectroscopic/quantum/resonance properties of gaseous CO₂, and all the other GHG's?? Does it all mean that the absorption spectra used by astronomers et al are all wrong, too??

Holy moly guacamole!!!

[pottyprof]

There is a ‘greehouse effect’ (although this is a misnomer as the atmosphere is nothing like what happens in a greenhouse) irrespective of whether there is any CO2 or not. The question is whether variations in the very small fraction of CO2 present has a significant effect on temperature.

I think this is fairly convincing as to the effects of CO2 but they don't say what the concentration is.

The theory goes that the first bit of extra CO2 increases temperature exponentially until it hits a certain point and then it has little effect. The thing is.. when do we get to that point or are we already there?

[Devonian]

I think this is fairly convincing as to the effects of CO2 but they don't say what the concentration is.

The theory goes that the first bit of extra CO2 increases temperature exponentially until it hits a certain point and then it has little effect. The thing is.. when do we get to that point or are we already there?

Read the IPCC reports to find out

[Essan]

There is a ‘greehouse effect’ (although this is a misnomer as the atmosphere is nothing like what happens in a greenhouse) irrespective of whether there is any CO2 or not. The question is whether variations in the very small fraction of CO2 present has a significant effect on temperature.

Latest research suggest is has a very significant effect - and explains why a fall of only, say, 200ppm can quickly result in snowball Earth ...

...the team identified non-condensing greenhouse gases -- such as carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons -- as providing the core support for the terrestrial greenhouse effect.

~ ~ ~

...it is the 25 percent non-condensing greenhouse gas component, which includes carbon dioxide, that is the key factor in sustaining Earth's greenhouse effect. By this accounting, carbon dioxide is responsible for 80 percent of the radiative forcing that sustains the Earth's greenhouse effect.

~ ~ ~

Without the sustaining support by the non-condensing greenhouse gases, Earth's greenhouse effect collapsed as water vapor quickly precipitated from the atmosphere, plunging the model Earth into an icebound state -- a clear demonstration that water vapor, although contributing 50 percent of the total greenhouse warming, acts as a feedback process, and as such, cannot by itself uphold the Earth's greenhouse effect.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101014171146.htm

So for those wanting a new ice age without all that silly complicated messing with obliquity and eccentricity and insolation and the like, all we need do is remove the CO2 :lol:

[barrel1234]

yes, I have seen that video before, but as mentioned above it has no details about concentration, also it really cannot be used as major imput to a climate model without having everything else in the model that would have an effect on climate, for this reason I really don't give much time to climate modelling. The old saying ''' Junk in - Junk out ''' fits well in my opinion. I am a science lover, but I do think there are so many conclusions that have been drawn incredibly prematurely regarding climate change.

[pottyprof]

Read the IPCC reports to find out

I'm more into science fiction than general fiction Dev... But just for you I'll try and make sense of it again. :winky:

[laserguy]

That video is useless and it's only purpose can be to impress primary school pupils. Did he add 0.03% CO2 precisely? Add water vapour as a comparison? There's a million questions just waiting to be asked. Still,if it "does it" for those of a certain persuasion.... And personally I'd get more sense out the Beano than the IPCC.

[pottyprof]

And personally I'd get more sense out the Beano than the IPCC.

I totally understand where you're coming from. The IPCC use big words and it's a right royal pain in the bum trying to understand it all. Anyway, we wouldn't expect you to be reading anything other than the beano.

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

Well, it's an argument but, (admirably, for it's only the first time you have and it's hard for any of us not to do), you stray into talking about character not science. I'll go there as well :winky:, and ask might it be the case there is a kind of arrogance in not accepting the accepted science wrt AGW, a science that is the product of many many decades work by smart people? And isn't there another problem in that (having watched these debates for years) it's often the case that people claiming we should question everything in fact have very strong views one way or the other. I suggest you question your view that you have to question everything - there's too much knowledge these day, too much to learn to question everything.

My view, arrogant perhaps, is G&T isn't going to change the reality about the greenhouse effect. In the last decade or two I've seen many people claim to have re written the greenhouse effect, to claim to have hammered the latest last nail into the coffin of AGW or dis-proven this bit or that bit of AGW science. Such claims loose their effect with time and endless repetition and zero confirmation ...

I guessed this would happen at some point. Oh well, was fun while it lasted.

Arrogance? Arrogance is a very big part of science and can’t be ignored because science has one weakness - it is the product of humans. People can be honest, confident, nice, nasty, irrational…. and arrogant. Scientists may be ‘cleverer’ (or at least more knowledgeable in certain areas) than the average Joe, but they can have these very same traits. I have talked in past posts of eminent scientists (who I know personally) in their field who made a big mistake, it is clear they made a mistake and everyone proves the mistake, but they still just can’t admit it. Of course this does not apply to all, but it can apply to ‘experts’ just as it can to anyone. I think without doubt the tone used in the G&T paper was verging on arrogance. I would never conclude a manuscript with ‘this is exactly what is happening and that’s it’ especially on such a controversial subject. Something like ‘our evidence suggest that this is what’s happening, but we need more information on X, Y and Z’ would be more apt.

Personally, I fail to see how anyone who looks into both sides of an argument before making their mind up is arrogant. That makes no sense. Was Charles Darwin just arrogant? People looking at all the evidence and making their own mind up is the key to science.

Cheers,

SS

[weather eater]

My sponsors (now 9 major global companies which you’d recognise the names of) now think we have to largely change our entire beliefs and that what I’m doing will become the new standard.

Same old merry-go-round on the climate change threads, but this sentence caught my eye. If you don't mind me asking, who are these companies and why are they sponsoring you.

Edited October 28, 2010 by weather eater

[Scottish-Irish Skier]

Same old merry-go-round on the climate change threads, but this sentence caught my eye. If you don't mind me asking, who are these companies and why are they sponsoring you.

I fear so.

Ha ha,

I could tell you but I’d have to kill you afterwards…

I guess I did not mention them as someone will jump on it.

Right now they include TOTAL, Shell, Statoil, Petronas (Malaysisa) DONG Energy (Denmark, you are allowed to snigger), OMV (Austria) and various chemical companies (e.g. Baker Hughes, Champion Tech, BASF).

So yes, I’m paid by them to come in here and convince you all that climate change is all a big hoax and oil is the savoir of the world! My secret is out.

Actually, most of my research has nothing to do with GW – I work on gas hydrates; primarily how to stop these forming in subsea oil and gas pipelines/processing equipment where a blockage can cost millions per day.

I have worked on government (EPSRC) projects on gas natural gas hydrates in seafloor sediments (which some consider a major player in past climate change) and CO2 sequestration where I then have cross-over into the climate change community. Been to some very interesting conferences etc related to this but working on this area less recently.

SS

[jethro]

Hands up all those who will instantly dismiss anything scottish skier has to say on the basis that he's obviously biased because he's funded by the oil industry?

I sincerely hope that that kind of bias which exists throughout the internet world of climate change discussions, doesn't permeate and cloud people's views here.

[cyclonic happiness]

Nah! I'm the only person in the world who's opinion I sometimes value! :lol:

[Devonian]

Hands up all those who will instantly dismiss anything scottish skier has to say on the basis that he's obviously biased because he's funded by the oil industry?

Not me! OK!

I guessed this would happen at some point. Oh well, was fun while it lasted.

Arrogance? Arrogance is a very big part of science and can’t be ignored because science has one weakness - it is the product of humans. People can be honest, confident, nice, nasty, irrational…. and arrogant. Scientists may be ‘cleverer’ (or at least more knowledgeable in certain areas) than the average Joe, but they can have these very same traits. I have talked in past posts of eminent scientists (who I know personally) in their field who made a big mistake, it is clear they made a mistake and everyone proves the mistake, but they still just can’t admit it. Of course this does not apply to all, but it can apply to ‘experts’ just as it can to anyone. I think without doubt the tone used in the G&T paper was verging on arrogance. I would never conclude a manuscript with ‘this is exactly what is happening and that’s it’ especially on such a controversial subject. Something like ‘our evidence suggest that this is what’s happening, but we need more information on X, Y and Z’ would be more apt.

Personally, I fail to see how anyone who looks into both sides of an argument before making their mind up is arrogant. That makes no sense. Was Charles Darwin just arrogant? People looking at all the evidence and making their own mind up is the key to science.

Cheers,

SS

I've spent a large part of my recent adult life looking into BOTH sides of the argument - ok? On that basis, what do you make of the refutation of G&T I posted?

I sincerely hope that that kind of bias which exists throughout the internet world of climate change discussions, doesn't permeate and cloud people's views here.

Of course there are other biases that permeate discussions here? That such and such is alarmist, or a scaremonger, or a greenie or, the IPPC are a joke, or well, you've seen them.

[jethro]

Of course there are other biases that permeate discussions here? That such and such is alarmist, or a scaremonger, or a greenie or, the IPPC are a joke, or well, you've seen them.

All those biased views existed here long before I joined, I'm merely a bog standard human being, not a genie with a magic wand.

Do lots of existing biases mean appeals to not add another one to the list cannot be made?

[weather eater]

Hands up all those who will instantly dismiss anything scottish skier has to say on the basis that he's obviously biased because he's funded by the oil industry?

I sincerely hope that that kind of bias which exists throughout the internet world of climate change discussions, doesn't permeate and cloud people's views here.

I asked the question but not because I'm interested in accusing SS of being bias, I have no evidence to back such a claim. I'm also not interested in rubbishing the work of any in the climate science community, it happens far too often on these pages, and on both sides of the debate. It may well be the case that a few members of the scientific community are paid to advocate a certain view point, but if that’s true then evidence must be produced to prove any such wrongdoing. Personally I doubt that many would get involved in that sort of skulduggery, proponent or sceptic of AGW.

However we cannot dismiss the involvement of the oil industry, given that they have a long track record of involvement with the sceptic side of the debate. Lets be clear here, they are not really interested in the truth or untruth of AGW, for them, any evidence, even if its not very conclusive, allows them to push the idea that the debate is still wide open, and thus action to curb CO2 emissions is not needed. Without a doubt this strategy is working, given the money they have chucked at it, it’s maybe not surprising . For somebody like SS it could be a tricky dilemma. you believe in your theory and you want to pursue your research, however the people you have to climb in bed with to get that funding, are not really that bothered as to whether you are right or wrong, just as long as you are keeping that debate open. I guess that if you feel sure of your theory then it doesn’t matter.

I only post on here intermittently, largely because the debate is so circular and also because I can't think of a single member whose views have been changed by reading anything written on these pages. Truth is anyone who thinks they are going to produce a convincing argument on these threads for or against AGW is living in cloud cuckoo land, its just not going to happen.

I'm just a simple fellow, I can do very little to change many aspects of my own life, let alone change the world. I can however observe and make a rational judgement. What I observe in the AGW debate is that one side has a pretty comprehensive argument to explain the warming we have seen, even if it has some holes. While the other side have only recently been willing to acknowledge that the warming has occurred, and they cannot produce a comprehensive and agreed counter theory to explain that warming. On a personal level, while the sceptics have not lost the debate, they are losing it.

On these pages the most common sceptic argument that gets used would appear to be. We just don’t know, enough about natural cycles, so they must be responsible. Funny how the flip side never gets a look in. We don’t know enough about natural cycles so maybe they are not the cause. By working to the, we don’t know enough theory, the advise is, its better to do nothing, than run the risk of doing something. That seems to me, to be a bit of a Neville Chamberlain position.

[noggin]

On these pages the most common sceptic argument that gets used would appear to be. We just don’t know, enough about natural cycles, so they must be responsible. Funny how the flip side never gets a look in. We don’t know enough about natural cycles so maybe they are not the cause. By working to the, we don’t know enough theory, the advise is, its better to do nothing, than run the risk of doing something. That seems to me, to be a bit of a Neville Chamberlain position.

I must pick you up on, particularly, your next to last sentence. It's rather scurrilous, I feel. I am an ardent "natural cycles" believer and I have never advocated doing nothing. Nor have I seen anyone on here advocating doing nothing. In fact, from what I have seen, the "natural cycles" supporters do all that they can to reduce their contribution to pollution levels. It is not because we feel that we caused the warming, but because we want to keep the planet as clean and unpolluted as we can.

It annoys me when sceptics have all this type of mud thrown at them. Still, it was ever thus on the climate threads and no doubt it will continue to be so.

Who can blame SS for withholding the names of his sponsors? I'm sure we all knew what response he would get.......it's so blooming predictable....same old tired stuff as always.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

This is interesting. Looks like global air temperatures and SSTs are having a good old drop. Courtesy of Dr Roy Spencer and UAH, via Anthony Watts' site.

Edited October 29, 2010 by noggin

[Devonian]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

This is interesting. Looks like global air temperatures and SSTs are having a good old drop. Courtesy of Dr Roy Spencer and UAH, via Anthony Watts' site.

What I find odd is why he's plotted the daily value for 26/10 on the monthly chart. It makes it look like monthly temperatures have fallen a lot when they haven't..

[weather eater]

I must pick you up on, particularly, your next to last sentence. It's rather scurrilous, I feel. I am an ardent "natural cycles" believer and I have never advocated doing nothing. Nor have I seen anyone on here advocating doing nothing. In fact, from what I have seen, the "natural cycles" supporters do all that they can to reduce their contribution to pollution levels. It is not because we feel that we caused the warming, but because we want to keep the planet as clean and unpolluted as we can.

It annoys me when sceptics have all this type of mud thrown at them. Still, it was ever thus on the climate threads and no doubt it will continue to be so.

Who can blame SS for withholding the names of his sponsors? I'm sure we all knew what response he would get.......it's so blooming predictable....same old tired stuff as always.

I'm also a believer in Natural cycles as well as AGW, it is possible to believe in both, they are not mutually exclusive. I did not say that everyone who is an AGW sceptic advocates doing nothing, however this is the message from the oil companies. There is no problem, its business as usual and it is an argument that they have been very successful at promoting. As for mud being thrown, this is an adult forum if members wish to take up a position on this subject, then they must expect that position to be challenged. I'm quite sure that SS understands this and is more than capable of fighting his own corner. And what’s with the tired stuff, what have any of us brought to the debate that’s not been gone over a hundred times, and does it matter if those arguments are valid.

[jethro]

I can't think of more than one or two sceptics on here who advocate "it's all natural" - it really is a minority view (on here).

I can think of lots of sceptics (myself included) who point to natural cycles as having played a part in the recent warming. The onus of the conversation being the degree of warming which is attributable to both causes.

I can also think of lots of supporters of the AGW theory who also think natural cycles have played a part.

The tension seems to stem when both sides assume that when the contribution of either AGW/natural enters the debate, the other one leaves the room. This may be a tactic to deflect attention away from the lack of evidence to prove a point or it may be an over-emphasis of one or the other, depending upon how important the posters deems it to be.

Either way, polarisation of anything, including views on AGW clouds the issue, misses the detail and makes a huge contribution to the circular nature of these debates.

I wonder how much further these discussions would have progressed if the assertions of it being an either/or situation had been left out?

As far as I can tell, the vast majority on here accept that both natural cycles and AGW have played a part in the warming, how about everyone focussing upon the magnitude of each of these components, instead of playing tit for tat with each other.

[weather eater]

I can't think of more than one or two sceptics on here who advocate "it's all natural" - it really is a minority view (on here).

I can think of lots of sceptics (myself included) who point to natural cycles as having played a part in the recent warming. The onus of the conversation being the degree of warming which is attributable to both causes.

I can also think of lots of supporters of the AGW theory who also think natural cycles have played a part.

The tension seems to stem when both sides assume that when the contribution of either AGW/natural enters the debate, the other one leaves the room. This may be a tactic to deflect attention away from the lack of evidence to prove a point or it may be an over-emphasis of one or the other, depending upon how important the posters deems it to be.

Either way, polarisation of anything, including views on AGW clouds the issue, misses the detail and makes a huge contribution to the circular nature of these debates.

I wonder how much further these discussions would have progressed if the assertions of it being an either/or situation had been left out?

As far as I can tell, the vast majority on here accept that both natural cycles and AGW have played a part in the warming, how about everyone focussing upon the magnitude of each of these components, instead of playing tit for tat with each other.

Therein lies the problem J, we really do not know the magnitude of either component. I often read the phrase we don’t know enough about natural cycles, and its true we don’t, however we also don’t know enough about the effects our actions either. For all we know, the warming could be happening against a natural cooling cycle not a warming one, we may be overriding that cycle to such an extent that its completely masked, it all seems like to much playing with fire to me.

I really don’t think it matters where the focus of debate is on these pages, we are doomed to go round and round, anyway. As individuals we all focus on different parts of the debate, its the influence of industry that interests me. Its why I do not read the whatsupwiththat site, its basically dishonestly titled, by that I don’t mean that every article they post is an outright lie, or a even a half true, but that every article is written with a clear agenda. That agenda is the same as the oil companies, the science is not settled so no change needed.

[laserguy]

I'm also a believer in Natural cycles as well as AGW, it is possible to believe in both, they are not mutually exclusive. I did not say that everyone who is an AGW sceptic advocates doing nothing, however this is the message from the oil companies.

As probably the most ardent sceptic/denier/whatever on here,I try (and succeed) in living the "green life" - though I guess the definition of that varies from one individual to another. So what difference does it make that I don't buy AGW to any degree whatsoever? The believers on here who are all too eager to have a pop at me for my cardinal sin should relax in the knowledge that I'm "doing my bit" - whatever the motivation is. I just glaze over whenever Big Oil is brought into this. Caught a teevee ad the other day where some huge oil company (can't remember which,don't care) were banging on about the xxx billions or whatever they've splashed out on green technologies/research etc. That's more to do with ensuring they stay in business than any pretence at saving the world from climate meltdown. I'm going back to my Beano.....