........"More than 90% chance that climate change caused by humans ........" It reads at the beginning of the article.

And yet the article is headed...."UN dossier 'ends all climate-change doubt"

These two statements do not JIBE!!!

I can see no evidence that man made emmissions of CO2 are potentiating the natural cyle of climate change associated with the 'ice-age cycles'.

Please quote chapter and verse of PROOF.

Do not keep repeating that there appears to be an ASSOCIATION between climate change and slight rising of the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Relationships are not necessarily causal.
Horses and carts are definitely associated but the carts do not cause the horses or the horses, the carts!!

Wipe out the one billion cows, you know it makes sense :)

How can people even think of criticizing a way of thinking that simply boils down to "Use less". Use less and pay less taxes, use less and pollute less. It may cost some industries a bit more but surely this is worth the healths of your children and grandchildren. I believe economists call them external costs-well, time to interalize them. If they pass the costs along, well its your choice to buy or not.

No doubt that our climate is changing[it has been thus for millenia].The evidence to prove it is human caused simply doesn't exist.However i think we all have an obligation to protect our environment as much as it is possible to do.Sounding like chicken little really doesn't help the situation...

SCULLION You have the problem and the solution!!

Free condoms!! Promote sex as fun not a duty to produce more and more kids!!

Less people but more sex could be the answer!!

People pollute!! Less people less pollution...Simple...

How about promoting HOMOSEXUALITY everywhere...Lots of good clean fun but no children to continue pollution of the earth.

Maybe Global Warming is part of the World Wide HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA that the Churches seem so exercised about!!

These so called scientists "JUST WANT FINACIAL SUPPORT" for their "NONSENSE RESEARCH" on Global warming TO MEET THEIR ENDS. I'm already "sick of hearing" this nonsense,They are making us like " An idiot" that humans behind this(Global warming?).They couldn't explain"THE LAST ICE AGE'!!!!! That's Nature!!!!!!!PEOPLE!!!!Is there anybody could explain this? without "blaming" humans, cows, emmissions or pollution?

Sigh, some people won't even try.

'If immediate action is taken' ......exactly what does this entail besides wiping out all cows?

5 Scotsdoc: You're very naughty!

Is it just me ....or is that a really stupid place to put a telephone kiosk?

There was an article recently linked from Orlin Grabbe's homepage reporting that human activity was responsible for only about 3% of CO2 release and that we were just about due for a move toward lower temps and increased ice mass--something that is reportedly increasing over land even as it decreases over the warming sea. Our planet's climatological history indicates strongly that this is cyclical and involves far more that the yahoos at Westminister and the Bizarro World Rainman at the White House can effect...the latter could, of course, just go 'nuk-lear' against Iran and give us something more pressing about which to worry.

Whatever the case, a tax will not solve it, a change in human activity will have little or no affect on it and any 'immediate action' will probably be ineffective, wasteful and asinine.

As science is unlikely to save our bacon, I suggest we consult an oracle...one who, perhaps, devines the future by a reading of entrails...with any luck, those entrails will belong to Tony Blair.

If Antarctica is liable to gain mass, surely that means it will counterbalance any rise in sea levels (new sources of water to raise the sea level can't just appear out of nowhere); so we're not all going to drown. The usual junk science turned into scaremongering.

Now they are also trying to put the fighteners on us by saying that we, in Scotland in particular, will stay cool because of the sea, but that all these Europeans will want to come here as refugees from the heat; all 500 million of them! Give me strength.

As for their temperature rise forecasts, that is a bit of a disappointment. I was hoping for a rise of at least 10 to 15 degrees Celsius; that would make this place a bit more comfortable.

All this will, of course, provide even more excuses for New Labour to think of new ways of increasing taxes; though with all this alleged global warming, they will soon be able to stop making winter fuel payments to pensioners - even if more of them die of hypothermia as a result.

It seems to me that the people that know the least talk the most!Guga, are you a scientist? Do you have more information than the 2,500 scientists, whose job it is to study this crisis. Wake up you morons, if you don't think billions of cars, lorrys, planes etc don't have an affect on the world you need to pull your head out of your @@s!!!!

This "leaked" draft will be the draft labelled "Do not cite or quote" then?

Notice how the predicted temperatures have fallen since the 2001 report? Notice how the level of knowledge for most climate factors is still rated as poor? Notice how it ignores the ongoing research into solar influences on climate? (I've got a draft copy too but I won't quote from it.)

Think the science is close to settled? Then how come a UK company is consistently accurate with its weather predictions more than 3 months ahead and it bases those predictions on solar emissions?

By the way, did you notice that the "summary for polucy-makers" will be released 3 months prior to the main body of the report. If the 2001 report is anything to go by, the SPM will make sweeping statements rather than express the full uncertainties of the scientific chapters. It all reeks of being a marketing exercise whose honesty should be examined by the appropriate government department.

Why the focus on CO2 when methane is 30 times more active a green house than CO2? Unfortunately the planet does not produce 30 tims less methane than CO2 therefore Scottwebb (alright mate?) has made a relevant point. However, to get rid of a billion cattle will take some eating!

And vegetatarians/vegans? Do you know that you produce more methane than meat eaters? Time to shove a cork in it! ;-)

Nothing to add to what Rules is saying above, except that, in the context of the kind of simulation models that produce these results, 90% certain is actually as conclusive a result as you'll ever get.

There will always be doubts because the climate is a highly complex system that is influenced by many different parameters, but if each run shows the same trends +/- a certain amount then you have a cast iron case in scientific terms.

There shouldn't really be a debate about this any longer because the case has been proven. Would any of you be willing to take a gamble on a 10% chance that the science is wrong?

#13 Junk science, yes!

DAve, the focus is on CO2 because it is the one increasing very rapidly, and is also one that we can affect more easily. Last I heard, Methane emissions were quite stable.

Goggsy has said it all. In science, there are very few to no certainties. What we end up with is the most likely probability.

Arise Knut son of Sweyn!!

Lets see how you do second time around!

Hiya Sandy

Last I heard/read methane production has increased very rapidally in line with the rapid expansion of cattle farming around the world (amongst other sources of course).

Got a few links if you fancy. However, I take on what you have said.

#11 A recent report said that scientists were surprised to find that though ice was disappearing from one side of the antarctic it was forming more at the other side so surely that means there was not a loss, just a change of place?

Another report told of fires burning underground in old coal mines etc that cause much of the emissions. Douse them and the problem drastically reduces. Of course, if that was done there would be no rason for green taxes!!!!

#10 John M, which is the UK company that is "consistently accurate with its weather predictions more than 3 months ahead and it bases those predictions on solar emissions"? I could use that info when planning my summer hols in Scotland.

That great Missourian, Sam Clemmons AKA Mark Twain, said, 'figures don't lie,..but liars figure!!"

I believe that the UN Dossier writers fall into this analysis ver neatly.

#13 - OK Guga, explain to me why it is junk science. You obviously have a great grasp of physics to have reached the conclusion that you have, so why don't you enlighten us all as to your objections to a scientific consensus that has been built up over decades and subjected to peer review after peer review and panel after panel.

To most rational people striving for a safe and better future for themselves and their families, 90% is enough to say that its time to take action.

To the sceptics... two fingers. Time to accept that others really do know better than you and your crackpot ideas.

Theres no point arguing with these people as they won't listen to reason. Let taxation hit them hard. They will change eventually, or just die out through old age. The younger generations are growing up with Climate Change and are far more in tune than these relics.

#13 - Actually Guga, don't bother. I cannae be a**ed and I have work to do.

Maybe you can enlighten me another time.

I think the gas change could happen faster than the think with bioengineering. The problem of course that releasing a ton of carbon-eating artificial life things would have its own dangers.

So how do they reconcile the ocean only going up a few inches with the arctic ice cap melting every summer? Not that the arctic ice cap itself will be a problem, since it's already floating, but that would imply Greenland will melt, and according to Inconvenient Truth that would raise the see level by 10 feet.

I hope you didn't miss the bit at the beginning that this is meant to be a *conservative* estimate since it got past the Saudis (& Americans presumably).

#20. Mark Twain (Samuel Longhorn Clemens) said a lot of things! But, he's long dead!

The planet we live on goes through periodic weather and tectonic shifting cycles. We have live volcanoes, tsunamis, forest fires and proven global warming. The Antarctic ice-shelf is breaking away and there are immense ice floes in the Arctic. The O-zone layer of our atmosphere is depleted somewhat.

I think it's safe to say we are going through a time of change. But have we contributed to it?

Nuclear testing, WMDs, chemical crop-dusting, flooding the world with CFCs, fish-farming, development of arable land into housing and commercial centres, overpoulation is some places (thank god for the creation of gays who don't procreate!), destruction of coastline habitats, massive deforestation in South America ....

Yeah, I'd say we have contributed to so me degree ...

So what's the argument?

http://platosway.blogspot.com

Another day, another story about global warming.

As with transport problems the government always takes the approach of taxing the masses, keeping the cash and not providing suitable alternatives.

Also, I don't see anyone knocking on China's door and asking them to stop building fossil fuel power stations. Oh yeh, I forgot that wouldn't fit in with the government's plan for the economy.

Hmm, I smell something fishy...

26. Rulebutnotrulers.
Example of junk science. Co2 levels have increased in the atmophere. You will say that ice cores have shown this and long term monitoring of atmospheric conditions have confirmed it. Really do you know where the only long term atmospheric monitoring station is no then I will tell you. The Hawaiian Islands but there is a slight problem. The Big Island’s volcanic eruptions have increased in recent years to the point where they are causing air pollution on Oahu, some 200 miles away. You will now say a but the ice cores show..... Glaciers flow because the ice softens and flows at about 150 feet from the surface. Carbon dioxide is inert and since carbon dioxide it’s less dense than ice, the carbon dioxide in the ice near the bottom of the ice is going to be squeezed upward in the ice, i.e., the upper ice layers will have more carbon dioxide than lower ice because it moves upward over time. One can see the same effect in the basalt flows of Oregon, such as that of the Cascades or the Table Rocks. When the lava flows across the surface, gas bubbles move upward as the basalt flows and cools. In light of the movement of carbon dioxide in glacier ice, it is not reasonable to claim that carbon dioxide levels are higher in the newer material near the top of the ice as the result of increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. In addition, since the Greenland ice caps that they are drilling cores from didn’t exist before the Little Ice Age, how can they believe that they are taking the measure of thousands of years? The oldest ice can be no more than ~600 years old!

Oh you Flat Earthers crack me up. Climate Change is fact....peer checked hypotheses v. the odd renegade industry funded maverick scientist....and of course the panel of experts on the Hootsmon comments board. Who should we believe?
Wake up and smell the ozone depletion you bunch of ostriches

It's always amusing when the people posting on this board think they understand the science better than a panel on 2500 actual qualified scientists, and can dismiss a very serious study by (mis)-quoting minor points. Maybe it just proves that some people will never listen. For those who doubt the conclusions of this study (I notice that none of you point as to why you understand the issue better than 2500 scientists -- maybe you're all professors of metorology but I doubt it) SCIENCE DOESN'T PROVE ANYTHING. So saying that it doesn't is neither here nor there. It just provides probibilities that something is correct. And, as someone stated, yes the limits are getting less, as the science improves that is exactly what you would expect. We get better, more accurate predictions with more data. So, stop demanding "proof" because you won't get it. That doesn't mean of course that you can't say with reasonable certainty what will happen. And in the light of that, you need to decide if action is necessary. Given this report and the recent Stern report, action as opposed to inaction would seem the only logical response.

26#

"Science is all about finding testable and plausible explanatory hypotheses. "

This is the fourth IPPC report. Each successive one has dramatically reduced te estimates of warming and sea level rise. This report halves the maximun sea rise from 34 inches to 17 from the previous one. The reason for this is that the previous models have been tested and been found to be false.

Nick1975

You are making an assumtpion that some of the commentors arn't wdiley read, learned or already have qualifications, much the same as the panel of experts. After all, all the experts are are widley read, learned and qualified people too.

It worries me when "2500 scientists" all say the same thing - the word 'bandwagon' springs to mind.

We need to distinguish between acting to save the climate and acting to conserve (eke out) the world's resources. Too often these two get muddled in people's thinking. We are clearly using up the world's resources too quickly, but the case for climate change is less well proven, despite protestations.

For example, water vapour is a much more potent greenhouse gas than either CO2 or methane - but what are we doing about that? Much more important is the fact that the sun is sending more heat to the earth than it was a century ago. We can't legislate against the sun, however hard we try.

I would recommend a good read of Christopher Monckton's articles in the Telegraph a month or so back, and his supporting documentation, before coming to a final judgement. They are at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/...

This is just another report that is going to be ignored
What is needed is real government effort. I think I would rather live a simpler life if it meant saving the world no flying, no cars and biking to work
We need to wake up soon and get emergency powers like a war effort to stop this screw up of the world
1. No more flights for leisure reasons for anyone period
2. Ration business flights
3. Tax it so flights cost 1000% more for cheap flights
4. Use existing technology like video conferencing instead of flying
5. Building no more coal gas or oil stations
6. Change our throw away culture to re-using
7. Stop cheap goods from china coming here making everything local food electric goods put the price up of consumer goods by 1000% so people don’t throw them away.
8. Have 100% of our energy from re new able sources
9. Change our greedy materialist culture which creates a selfish culture of me me me
10. Force countries to take action to reduce their population by taxes and other incentives
The huge Population is the biggest problem and one that environmentalists are afraid to tackle because it might require infringements on the rights of people to have children. I would say what is more important someone’s right to have as many children as they want or the right of everyone to live in a health safe and clean environment.
How is it defendable for families in poverty to have lots of kids (6+) in poverty and inflict a life of poverty and misery on the children better to have less children better for families better for the environment. There is too many of us on the planet
Time to take some responsibility everyone’s actions have an effect good or bad on the environment

It's the old story the largely dis-credited IPCC consisting of politicians and their bureaucrats making is an artfully constructed presentation of just the science that supports the fear of human induced climate change. It is as one sided as a legal brief, which it resembles. It is far from the opinion of many of the claimed 2500 scientists submitting papers on climate change.
I note that the Gulf Stream and apparently including now the North Atlantic Drift have been classed as non factors and "freezing" Scotland seems unlikely despite the lurid headlines that Scotland would become a frozen wilderness possibly within 10 years by the green terrorists just a few months ago.

#31

That's a case of twisting the facts to support a poistion worthy of any politician. While the report halves the maximum sea rise over the previous study, it raises the minimum rise from 3.5 inches to 11 inches. By your reasoning, are the effects not now three times worse than previously thought?

#29 George -The Greenland ice cap is not the same age all over; the oldest parts - where the ice is 3000 metres thick and took seven years to drill through - are 120,000 years old. The last Ice Age ended about 12,000 years ago. All our human civilisation has grown since then, a geological blink of an eye and is dependent on climate conditions not changing unduly. Our agriculture, for example, depends on the existence of a temperate belt.
I expect that there are statistical analyses to account for any upward movement of carbon dioxide if your hypothesis is correct about its being squeezed to the surface. Reading the scientific papers one is constantly reminded of how conservatuve with a small 'c' scientists are and how averse to scare-mongering; if they say there is a 90% chance that climate change is caused by humans, that's the sort of odds worth betting on.

33. Jimmo good points.
Scientific consensus said the Sun revolved around the Earth. Scientific consensus said that the Earth was flat. Global Warming proponents ignore the fact that Mars is showing major Global Warming, Pluto now declassified as a planet is getting warmer although at this point in its orbit it is moving away from the Sun. Now for some facts
water vapour makes up 95% of all Green House Gases only 0.001% is man made. Of all the CO2 that is produced only 3.225% is man made. In total man made contributions make up only 0.28% of the Green House Gas effect.
The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.K. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.K. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from cars to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth's climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

Dr Richard Dixon of WWF previously of FOE wanting to tell the rable how we should be living our lives. Perhaps he could tell us how many miles he covered in the past year and by what method and his consumption of power and water. On appearance he could certainly benefit the planet with a reduced personal intake!
If he scores less than me I should certainly take anything he says more seriously. What I don't like is lessons from hypocrites.

We will ignore this report as usual and bury our head in the sand
So this is what will happen according to scientists and economists and future trend experts (unless they are republican stooges) I made up the last point though

1, Rise in temperature
2. Huge increase in war over land and natural resources
3, Huge increase in poverty and famine in a biblical scale of 100s of millions people
4. A shrinking of the world’s economy as industries in Africa and the third world collapse
5, mass extinction of species
6, flooding of coastal cities and countries like Holland due to melting ice caps
7, MASS migration in the 100s of millions to Europe as people are made homeless
8. In response to this there will be war.
As their will be a collapse of the world economy
mass unemployment and economic strife in a record scale and 100s of millions of migrates to countries in northern Europe like the uk, as southern Europe and Africa and India become unliveable for much of the population, as a result you will get fascist governments coming back into power
THIS IS THE LEGACY WE ARE LEAVING OUR CHILDREN MORE HATRED OF MIGRATION MORE POVERTY MORE WAR DESTRUCTION OF MOTHER EARTH.
9 it won’t affect the rich they will just move to the unspoilt Antarctica and close it off to the rest of the world when the ice melts

"human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are to blame "

Like the unecessary burning of all the cattle during the Mad Cow Desease issue

41. Human activities are to blame for 0.28% of the problem.

8 Nov 06 –– Research scientists D.J. Wingham et al. analyzed satellite
altimeter echoes to determine changes in volume of the Antarctic ice
sheet from 1992 to 2003. This survey, in their words, "covers 85% of
the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet,"
which together comprise "72% of the grounded ice sheet."

They found that the ice sheet is growing at 5 ± 1 mm year-." Not only
is the ice sheet growing thicker, its volume is increasing. The researchers
estimate that "72% of the Antarctic ice sheet is gaining 27 ± 29 Gt year,
sufficient to "lower global sea levels by 0.08 mm year."

This net extraction of water from the global ocean, according to Wingham
et al., occurs because "mass gains from accumulating snow, particularly on
the Antarctic Peninsula and within East Antarctica, exceed the ice dynamic
mass loss from West Antarctica."

Contrary to all the horror stories one hears about rising sea levels that
gobble up coastal lowlands worldwide, the real-world data suggests just
the opposite effect.

An article a short time ago mentioned that "Farm Animals" farting could be the cause..
Apparently.. they are "breaking wind" more.. because of what they are being fed with..

Leave it a few weeks.. and the "Scientists" will come up with yet another reason for the "Climate Change"

I haven't seen any menton yet of all the "Gases" from the Missiles and Bombs that were used in Iraq.. etc...

Hi George - are you the same George that thinks the last ice age was 600 years ago? (post#29)

"It projects temperatures will rise by 2-4.5C (3.6-8.1F) above pre-industrial levels"
2C or 4.5C rise in temperature so it must be somewhere in between. WRONG the science is so uncertain that there is a 125% difference, suggesting that the uncertaincies are such no reliance can be placed on either result!

Alright two things climate change is a natural event I think we can all agree that is right. Second what we as humans have and are doing to change the natural course of events is harder to quantify. The exact calculation of how much the global temp is affected by human activity now and in the future is based on models.

By it's very nature science is based on observation and measurement, we cannot be too sure until 50 years for now what the temperature will be. Our friend in 35 made a great content about the salt content of gulf stream.

Government scientists that have been measuring a drop in the salt content for the last 25 years.

The gulf stream has switched off numerous times, this usually occurs over 100 years. Now instead of letting the green nuts jobs threaten everyone can we please have some adult supervision!!

Earth’s climate during the last 1,000 years

Medieval climatic optimum (AD 700-1200).
Medieval glaciation (AD 1200-1460).
Brief climatic improvement (AD 1460-1560).
Little Ice Age (AD 1560-1890).
Modern climatic optimum (AD 1890-2000).

BBC Radio 4 effectively demolished the Stern Report last night ( 'Investigation' BBC Radio 4 8pm) by allowing top scientists and economists to dissect the 'science' used to concoct this rubbish. Go to the BBC Radio 4 'Listen Again' page and check it out.

The words 'cimate change' are a tautology: climate IS change - it has never NOT been changing. The current hype and hysteria seems to serve the interests of tax gatherers more than true science. Undoubtedly the earth is warming and undoubtedly human actions are having an effect. The question is 'how much'?

One interesting aspect is the output of the sun itself.
Armagh Observatory has an excellent science paper on solar variation - go to: http://www.arm.ac.uk/climate/intro.html

This notes that although the Earth is just 8,000 miles in diameter the Sun is - get this - 864,000 miles in diameter. You could fit 1,300,000 planet Earths inside the sun - it is bigger than you can possibly imagine.

It would only take a tiny variation in the output of the sun to produce very dramatic changes on earth - and the graphs seem to show that solar max does exactly that.

Finally, it has been a LOT warmer here in the recent past. The Romans were growing grapes in the North of England 2,000 years ago. Also, when they excavated Skara Brae in Orkney they found the middens were full of Mediterranean fish bones and species not founf within a thousand miles of Orkney today. Ergo, Orkney - 5,000 years ago had seas that were like the south of France. That is VERY recent in planetary terms, and there was no heavy industry at that time, and very few humans.

We should definitely conserve energy and get away from dependence on fossil fuels - but I suspect that solar output has a great deal to do with global warming.

Irrespective of the correctness of the results of the study, I do have some concerns about how we deal with environmental issues like these. Assuming for the moment that the global warming we are seeing is a result of CO2 emissions caused by human activity, what's the appropriate course of action? In terms of the various forces that cause, change, and maintain the earth's climate, I think most people would accept that the human contribution is marginal. The problem is that life on earth depends on marginal conditions. In terms of earth's history, it doesn't require such a big change to put our survival at risk.

Let's say, after a great effort, we are successful at cutting CO2 emissions and manage to halt global warming. Wouldn't it be ironic if natural events then started a cooling shift, and we suddenly wished we had more CO2 in the atmosphere? As major climatic change is surely inevitable at some time through natural forces alone, it's not entirely implausible.

I'm not advocating a do-nothing approach. But I question actions whose aims are based on the simple notion that we shouldn't interfere with nature. Nature sure isn't going to stop interfering with us.

Instead of technology being driven by "environmentally-friendly" reasoning, I'd like to see more emphasis given to "environmental independence". Ideally, I'd like to live in a house that can survive intense heat, cold, wind, flooding and any other nasty stuff that nature throws our way. I don't think it's beyond our abilities? So let's cut down on CO2 emissions by all means, if just for the sake of being less wasteful with the resources we have. But at the same time, how about some more "big projects" such antarctic habitats, desert habitats, and reviving the good old moonbase project that is always getting put on hold. I think these would have useful technological spin offs, and might fire up the scientific imaginations of our childen more than saving rain fo

The Authority
"2,500 scientists", all anonymous.
Funny how govt. agencies find all this back up when the outcome is an excuse to raise taxation that the general population will find impossible to avoid paying.

The Frightener
"Our (ie Scotland's) main problem will be ...refugees. Every European has the right to come here - and there will be 500 million."

Largs is going to be crowded then, eh?

Let's say, after a great effort, we are successful at cutting CO2 emissions and manage to halt global warming. Wouldn't it be ironic if natural events then started a cooling shift, and we suddenly wished we had more CO2 in the atmosphere? As major climatic change is surely inevitable at some time through natural forces alone, it's not entirely implausible - Bordersman

Um yes. I beleive there was a significant cooling period before in the history of the Earth. Ice age I believe it was called. Isn't it true the the Earth will either be heating up or cooling down given we have a constant heat source?

Of course climate change is a fact Scotty, how else do you explain the previous ice age? And before that the sub tropical era?

Puleeeze!

#11

'Fact: the hottest ten summers since records began are the last ten'

That isn't a fact. That is a lie.

Plus what is this 'pre industrial temperature' that keeps getting mentioned. Where are we in relation to that now? We should be well above that already with all the rubbish we have been pumping out since the revolution.

And finally - Could we just not plant loads of trees?

Well, despite all this research and warnings and my own cynical viewpoint on climate change I understand that I have to change my lifestyle a bit anyway. so I am getting down to seperating the waste, getting rid of my gas guzzler, turning the standby switches off etc etc . But I am not stopping getting on the cheapest airline I can get for my summer jaunt to Spain, at least not whilst our government spend billions of pounds on fuel for wars which alone account for a massive hole in the ozone layer.

Here's a nice concise article on global warming that helps put all this into perspective :-

http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive113.htm

Read it and see if you're still convinced that the UN dossier end all doubt!!

Seperate waste all you want, you still are creating waste.

Instead of one wagon coming round once a week or fortnight tot ake your rubbish away to a central proessing unit, there are 3 wagons once a week to do so.

If those that really deeply care, go live in a cave until such times as the whole energy business has been cracked. Until that time, you really are just paying lip service toit all.

(sorry sedov, I'm not having a pop at you in the slightest).

The GREEN HOUSE effect has kept our atmosphere nice and worm for a lot of time. If it didn't exist Earth would probably look like Mars. CO2 = green house gas which was usually regulated by PLANTS. YOU DO THE MATH, don't let the EXXON SCIENTISTS do it for you.

#57 Yes, I am, are you? Who exactly are these alleged 2,500 scientists? How many of them are just jumping on the bandwagon to try and get themselves either some kudos or just make a bit of money?

Why don't people like you actually read some of these posts, as well as the mountains of scientific literature available, before bad-mouthing anyone who disagrees with your point of view?

Answer me one question I raised in my post at #9, namely:If Antarctica is liable to gain mass, surely that means it will counterbalance any rise in sea levels (new sources of water to raise the sea level can't just appear out of nowhere).

If this so-called report can make a simple mistake like that, then what price the remainder of their conclusions?

Remember, these same bandwagon scientists were warning us all about ten years ago that we were heading for another ice age. Did you believe their every word then too?

They are taking data obtained over a very short term and extrapolating from it in whatever way takes their fancy at any particular time. The nonsense about the ozone layer, for example, was data obtained since monitoring of it began about thirty years ago in Antarctica. there was no available date before then. They merely extrapolated on that data to get themselves some publicity, and money for television appearances, to say that the ozone layer was being depleted. For all they really know, it could just as well be a short term variation.

Extrapolation of limited data to fit your chosen "facts" is junk science.

Nick1975: Your much-touted "scientific consensus" on global warming has just been exposed as phony. An unprecedented number of scientists—more than 15,000, including over 10,000 with advanced academic degrees—have now signed a petition against the climate accord adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.

The level of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere is 0.04%.

Until a scientist can prove that this trace element in our atmosphere is affecting our climate in any meaningful way and that this 0.04% would be much less if not for humans, I will always treat claims that climate change is an human made problem with scepticism.

The fact is that this level of carbon dioxide is as low as it has been since the earth was formed. Another fact is that the earth (apart from ice ages) is as cold as it has ever been.

There seems to be alot of putting 2 and 2 together to make 5 within our scientific community. It smacks of scientists not being able to accept that nature is the most powerful force on this planet and there is nothing they can do about it.

Our climate has been unusually benign since the end of the last ice age, allowing humans and other species to flourish. However change is the natural order, get used to it!

Am I the only person who's sick to the back teeth of hearing about this? The constant barrage of climate change data is getting beyond a joke. Wouldn't be so bad if they actually had something new to say instead of trotting out the same story day after day. It's got so bad I'm rapidly nearing the stage where I couldn't care less! Some people will be constantly piling on the guilt until we're all back living in caves

Well said #60.

#66. You are right to point to the opposition to the Kyoto protocol.

Only one piece of evidence was presented during this fiasco, the two scientists concerned have since withdrawn the paper they presented admitting that they got it all wrong.

Disasterously, the Kyoto protocol has committed Governments around the world to spending trillions of dollars on "combating climate change". This money should be spent on moving vunerable communities, better sea defences etc etc.

#63 Dave, none taken Dave and you are right of course. But doing all the" environmentally friendly" stuff is like going to the Gym for an hour. You know its not doing the least bit of good but its eases your conscience. PS just had a lovely mince pie from the butchers shop , but how long before the health freaks ban those for good?

Over the last 100 years, the global sea level has risen by about 10 to 25 cm.

This is cited as conclusive evidence of the deleterious effect of human industrialization on the world's climate.

But this is just not so. According to the United Nations Environmental Programme, this rate of rise is in fact about the average over the last seven and a half millenium, and indeed little more than one third of the mean rate experienced over the whole period since the start of the big melt at the end of the last ice age some 18,000 years ago.

So far from clinching the case for artificially induced sea level rises, this demonstrates that mankind has had no effect whatsoever on those natural sea level rises that have been happening for ages in any case--and that we have managed to survive and thrive with, somehow or other.

Surely the answer to the problem (the problem being mankind's abuse of this planet) is to let the current situation carry on as predicted, thus resulting in the deaths of masses (with a bit of luck, billions) of insignificant humans. Over time, the planet will evolve into a more natural state and the remaining humans can start all over again.

Let's not get all sentimental about these future deaths; afterall, how can you possibly have feelings for generations who are not even born yet? Think about it, we don't really have much real sentiment for lives lost in previous centuries as we can not feel a true connection to them; unlike the sentimental feelings you may still living people you encounter throughout your own life.

This planet has been evolving for billions of years. It still is. Anyone who thinks they can stop the process, to allow mankind can carry on in a similar fashion to that which we are accustomed to today, is living in a fantasy world.

In the meantime, I'll just try to be a decent citizen during my lifetime and try to please the people living around me.

#57 You should also have a read at the following:

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15556
http://www.sitewave.net/news/s49p419.htm
http://globalwarminghoax.wordpress.com/tag/kyoto-accord/

Then get yourself hold of some actual scientific papers.

It's worth adding that if the sea level rises by 25 cm, this will NOT result in vast areas submerged under the seas.

If the average gradient of sea-adjacent land is 10% (remember there's a lot that's cliffs, etc., and very little indeed that's really level) that 25 cm rise would translate into a 2.5 meter (say, 8 feet) encroachment by the sea, which is utterly trivial.

In the words of Corporal Jones, "Don't panic!"

So the white cloud tops reflect heat back out to space, seems obvious, fine. Volcanic ash does the same that's good so here's a simple solution that kills, so to speak, two birds with one stone.
All these countries which train suicide bombers and will not toe the wests line by controlling them should be nuked, good style, creates a nuclear winter, keeps the temperature down, more reflective ash in the atmosphere reflects more heat into space, and sorts out the terrorist problem. I call that a simple value for money final solution.
As to my part in all this.....Nothing..... it's too late for me to change the habits of a life time, besides I'm a selfish lazy good for nothing git who couldn't care less. I don't expect I'll live long enough to see any
vast change since I smoke, drink occassionally, have sex as often as I can, and drive a car everywhere. I might stretch out to about 2040 or 50
but who cares. It's easy this way, leave it to our children and grandchildren to sort out our mess, while we continue having a high old time. It's no more than they deserve anyway, it'll keep their mind of happy slapping, crap TV, violence, drugs, and vandalism. Give them something valuable to do.
Yeh it works, three problems sorted out not two. Clever me.

#11

The warmest year ever recorded in the United States was 1933. What's gone 'wrong' since?

Perhaps taxes on the meat industry? They breed the cows for slaughter. It's more economic to eat vegetables rather than feed the veg to cows and then eat them!

Actually... more methane comes from Barraigh than any other part of Scotland. A lot of it transferred to the written word and exhibited here. Cainnt mo mhathair? Chan i Gaidhlig Bharraigh!

Seriously, it's funny how so many soapbox commentators know better than thousands of scientists. Do you always argue with your doctor? After all, GPs can be wrong too. It's like we're going back to some dark-ages religious flat-earth philosophy... in denial.

This is something the doomers will never tell you. In mid December, the Gulf Stream faltered for approximately ten days. On December 11, a well-defined drain of southward moving warm water appeared, and persisted until December 19, when it began to close. By December 21, the stream appeared relatively normal, but the volume of the subsurface flow remains an open question. Had this situation persisted for a month, it would have caused a major climate catastrophe in Europe, and if it became permanent, fundamental climate change that would lead to dramatically cooler weather across the whole continent.

No one can tell me that any of the last ten years approached 1976 for record breaking heat.

#77 Yes I often argue with my doctor who, (with their own admission) can sometimes get it wrong. Science evolves not through forever going forward but sometimes having to go back and learn the lessons through discussion and debate not just from scientists and experts but through the users of the planet as well. God help us if we ever stop challanging "progress". Soapbox commentators are an important part of the check on the rulers of the world who should always be held accountable through democratic discussion including the website. In the so called third world the population rely not just on the vegetation to eat but on the animals as well and there is nothing wrong with that.

79) So I won't bother then, but what has that got to do with it?

#77 Calum Crubag. We are going back to some dark-ages religious flat-earth philosophy, with the priests of doom telling us we're all damned. We need to let some light into the discussion. Have a read at my post #73.

Chan 'eil eader an t-amadan agus an duine glic ach tairgse mhaith a ghabhail 'nuair a gheibh e i.

Aye sedov, your right @70.

Guga

Calum Crudbag likes to wind people up with rhetoric then hides behind gaelic. It's cowardly of course.

S mathaid ach...
chan fhaic sibh a' choille air sgath nan craobhan!

Again, do we mistrust all scientists? If we're sick and our GP gives us pills do we immedietly bin them? If you doubt these guys then use science to prove you're own thesis that all our pollution has no effect.

Sorry Daibhidh, i was just joshing about Gaidhlig Bharraigh being sgriosail. I was serious about the methane though.

Gabh gair' a' bhodaich!

Global warming my arse! Its a load of bollocks...

I will continue to purchase SUV's !

It's our moral and otherwise obligation to question everything from the scientific and political community. If we didn't, we'd still believe the world is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth as it does in Calum Crudbags world.

Media 1

We can always rely on a well timed and thoroughly well thought out comment from yourself!

Perhaps one day, "global warming" will warm yer arse! ;-)

81
If you are claiming the last 10 years are the warmest on record it has something to do with it.
Now it suits the agenda of the boy scientists the hottest year of the last century, 1976, is forgotten.

#83 Dave, the gaelic doesnt bother me one bit , I just wished I could find time to learn it. I can sometimes use a lowland language learned by being brought up in the roughest, toughest part of Edinburgh. It has its best effect face to face and has as much history and impact as gaelic.

#88 Dave the Barra boy: Cmon Davey, dont be attempting to disguise your one dimensional thought processors by suggesting that I have nothing to say...For every story you show that PROVES global warming, I will show you one which disproves it.

On that note, I DO AGREE that looking after the planet is a good idea, but to lead us down the garden path believing that the world is in grave danger is pathetic.

I still want to know why the oceans were 30 to 32 degrees warmer 64 million years ago than they are now..Surely if they are cooler now then the planet has become colder..no?

18 How do you propose to douse them? Those fires won't stop till the source of fuel is gone.

34
May I take the liberty of adding to your wish list for when you rule the world?

11 Stick a tube in the rectum of every bovine on Earth. Join the tube with a large balloon thereby giving us cheap fuel and reducing methane emissions.
12 Once people are used to the sight of cows with balloons trailing them we can gently (oh so gently) begin the same practice with people.

40
Please read this link. These problems you foresee may never happen.
http://www.overpopulation.net/

So, let me get the basics (as reported) listed....

The Arctic is losing ice mass but Antartica is not (and may even be adding to its ice mass).

The Antarctic contains the vast majority of the planet's frozen water.

The Arctic Ice Pack is mainly a floating body of ice.

The Arctic Ice pack melts and freezes on an annual cycle.

Right then, we are under threat of "huge" increases to mean sea level. Or, are we?

Have we ever noticed a change to sea levels due to the seasonal melt of Arctic ice? In other words, does the sea level go up in summer and down again in winter?

No? So why not? Perhaps it is the fact that the bulk of the Arctic Ice pack is floating and any loss of ice mass will be countered by decrease in amount of water displaced by the ice. Archimedes!

Can anyone point to anywhere on this planet where it can be proved that there has been a net increase in sea levels due ENTIRELY to polar ice melt?

Once again, serious science is misused or misquoted in pursuit of various sensationalist agenda.

The politics of fear!

Sooner or later the idiots in power will twig onto the obvious. If they can increase economic wheels a turning by having almost everyone purchase and use gadgets and toys under the guise that they are necessary=millions of jobs & gazillions of dollars, yen, euros, etc, and the wheels are turning; then when will the idiots in power twig onto the gazillions of bucks, and millions of jobs awaiting by cleaning up this mess we have created and preventing further damage. We were made to enter the gizmo world. Try getting a warm body on the telephone. We can be made to participate in another economy, one that involves: technology, labour, and almost every sort of production. Imagine another Silicon Valley with money a flowing to take advantage of ecological requirements mandated by the very countries that caused the mess. So what if all this s*** cost another ten percent. We would have more money flowing and more jobs, taxes, infrastructure, etc. Look back at the end of the depression and what Roosevelt did by getting a country back to work by building the infrastructure that still exists today. The country and the world is better off because of that. It wasn't welfare it was work. The workers bought stuff which made more jobs ... Or is this too simple a solution for the muddled powers that be?

Nice, got my comment removed.

It was removed because I insulted Media 1. The irony is palpable!!

#94 well said Dave.

Ach well, at least you got to read it Guga.

Cheers pal! ;-)

fatboyslim, Dave From Barra, plus others...

THIS IS A CROCK! It's hype from Godless people who believe in idols, sodomy, murder of babies, taking from the achievers and giving to slackers. And, you are blindly following. Baaaaaa

Think about it. If humans wanted to raise the temp of the earth 1 degree...we couldn't. The planet is a swirling mass of warm and cool air, warm and cool water, and those things react to warm and cool land. Please, read something other than the crap that screams the current line. In 1976, the cover of Newsweek talked of the coming ice age. Get a grip. When a group gets together and decides something, that a consensus. When scientists get together and PROVE something that's science. The current stupidity about global warming is based on consensus...not science. Become familiar with the difference between the two words.

Read, open your mind to reason, maybe force out a prayer that this lunacy will cease, and stop bleating at the moon.

For starters, read some of the data on this site:

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speeches/index.html

Sheesh...you people are so tiring!

If we can put a man on the moon then we can produce transportation that doesn't need fossil fuels. The reason we are not is that millions of people would lose their jobs and a few few would lose billions of dollars. So why not let the greed continue and just make us pay for clean energy? Cuz nobody does anything untill their backs are up against the wall. This is why one needs a little exageration from the scientists. Hey bold face lies got us into Iraq.

#99 Phocus: Well said

Phocus

Whit sh*t are you talking about? Have you read all the comments? I challange you to go back and re-read all my comments. You will find out that I'm as skeptic as everybody else.

It's people like you and Media 1 that only bother to read the very last few comments that make me very angry. Go do some homework i.e. read ALL the comments IN sequence then come back and apologies to me in the medium of country dancing.

Media 1

Go back and read all the comments in sequence, asshole. I'm as skeptic as anybody else.

Then once you and Phocus have pulled your heads from each other sphincters, we can have a sensible debate.

LOL Dave, you tell 'em.

Dave from Barra: WELL DONE you noticed! Now you get it I hope..

You see, its not so nice when people do it to YOU davey, but heck its alright when YOU do it to them..

Now thats out of the way, I would say that I am all for doing what we can to look after the planet, but I will not buy into the warming debate.

Media 1

Whit sh*t are YOU talking about? Please, you are unable to contribute sensibly and I also think you smell bad and everybody thinks so.

Dave From Barra...

You have my most humble and embarrassingly over the top apologies for including you...YOU...in with fatboyslim and the like. PLEASE forgive me...as I said...this is all so tiring, I must have dozed off as I typed. You are brilliant, you are right, you are a bit of a cry ba....oops. Thanks in advance for letting this one slide...

International assholes asides for a moment.

I've just found an article in the New Scientist about ancient and up to date eruptions.

Melanie Baroni of Joseph Fourier University in St Martin d'Heres, Fran and her colleagues are studying ice core samples in the Antartic in a region not contaminated by human emmissions.

They have detected 2 past eruptions that punched through the stratosphere:the Philippines Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and Indonesias Mount Agung in 1963. Both eruptions affected Earths climate by blocking out sunlight. Pinatubo alone is thought to have cooled the Earth by 0.5 Degrees C. They are now drilling back 1 million years to map the impact volcanic eruptions over the years. - New Scientist 13 January 2007.

Now considering how many global eruptions there are every year/decade/century, what would be the cummulative effect to Earths cooling?

Phocus

Hows that country dance coming along?

Long before green was the colour of environmentalism, it was the colour of envy. And that explains a lot.

It explains why (even if anthropogentic CO2 global warming were to be real) the greens insist that the only Way To Save The World is to stop doing things people like doing, like driving cars or taking cheap flights.

If there really is such a problem with the climate, it is both obvious and simple to 'fix' it with technology. But then people would not suffer, and that would never do.

Dave From Barra

Sorry Dave, you must have me confused with one of your 'light footed' aquaintances...I don't dance. But do keep looking...you will find a partner yet.

#107 Dave the Barra boy: Now now, calm down there wee man. This is not real life, it is a message board. You need to disinguish reality from the world of make believe.

I have commented on the topic at hand in all my posts thus far whilst all you have done is attempt to score BARRA METER points from the other posters. Do you have ANY comments to make on the topic Davey?

Look at 109 Media 1 for a comment if you like.

Certainly a lot more interesting than "Global warming my arse! Its a load of bollocks...

I will continue to purchase SUV's !" - Media 1.

#111
Quite

This must be about the 20th time I have seen the "final nail" in the skeptic's coffin. As Mrak Twain said "reports of my death have been exagerrated".

On previous occasions the politicians have rewritten IPCC reports after the scientists had gone home. This tends to reduce the credibility of subsequent reports.

I doubt if all the IPCC reports together are worth this one Parliamentary answer of how tiny the amount of CO2 humanity is responsible for is:

"The amount of carbon dioxide emitted from human sources is small in comparison to natural flows:at around 3% emitted from the land and oceans to the atmosphere”

The Minister also told me “In 2004 the UK emitted approximately 1.5 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per day “(I think from human sources). This compares with the “25 billion tonnes emitted each year globally” from human sources and the total emissions of 800 billion tonnes from all sources."

http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=66#comment-298

Why should we believe this any more than we should have believed the Millenium Bug doomsdayers.
Planes were going to drop out of the sky. Stock exchanges would grind to a halt. Power stations would explode, etc. etc.
The clock struck 12 and .....................nothing.
A massive con, and geeks made fortunes advising huge organisations run by idiots how to protect them selves from the bug. Science with egg all over it's face.
I am now going to try the ice cube experiment.

"27. George. / 9:24am 26 Jan 2007 24. Joanna So how do they reconcile the ocean only going up a few inches with the arctic ice cap melting every summer?

You are a idiot. I am sorry but that the truth. I hope I can make this simple enough for you to understand. If you can imagine all the Oceans in the world as a large glass. You then fill the glass with ice and then top up with water until it reaches the brim, leave it for an hour or two so as the ice can melt. You will then see that the water level has dropped. This is because water expands when frozen."

You can also look at comment 12, 17, 53, 59, 63 and 87 which still rise above 86 somewhat and the fact that you ask if I have a comment to make only goes to re-affirm you don't actually read comments here and consider them, you just react to the immediate one that appear on your screen at any one time.

#8
You just added years to my life. I almost fell out of my chair. Thanks! :-)

It would be a boon for enterprises and therefore for job creation to do somehing postive about drastic climate change .Nenty percient is adequate to show drastic change. We can overcome drastic change.Let's act! Phocus is a faith-based ignoramus! Mary Jo , what do you say?

That is ninety percent.How about enforcing the ban on silly swearing ?

Personaly I don't see the problem. If we continue to use fossil fuel at our current rate we will rapidly run out. Resulting in no more carbon emmissions (except everytime we exhale that is). The only problem is, that without a viable alternative fuel source, the economy of the west will collapse. I may be a cynic, but could that be the reason we are compelled to use less fossil fuel?

#1 Scotsdoc. Well said!

I have seen all of these "authoratative" reports before. The usually preceed tax rises, restrictive legislation, military campigns or indeed all of them put together. They always use phrases like "x number of scientists/politicians/researchers agree that..." or "based on current trends..." or "statistics show that..." without bothering to provide any detail about the matter.

This happened during the anti-smoking campaign, the anti-hunting campaign, the lead-up to Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. Now it's happening with climate change as well.

Do we believe it? I for one do not.

47.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot...

BARRA! LMFAO...Oh what a place that is..

Dear #74:

It may be trivial to you, but it sure isn't to my wife and me. We currently live at 10 ft. above mean high tide on a tidal estuary. That's a lot different than your projected future of only 2 ft.!!

An 8 ft. rise would take out large portions of coastal terrain in the eastern USA, including my wife and me. The southern coast of Long Island, NY, all the way down to Florida and around the Gulf of Mexico coast — literally thousands of miles of both exquisite natural habitat and billions in pricey real estate would be impacted.

#126 Paul S: Here is the thing mate! MOVE to another house for god sakes.

For crying out loud! You couldnt make this s*** up

Who pays all these scientists to come up with all this stuff?
You do the taxpayers of this planet.
Large government grants are given out to those scientists to come up with this piffle.
Why would they want to bite the hand that feeds them?

#127 Media 1

We just built this one and it is absolutely to our own design and is our personal dreamhouse. And (until the upcoming sea rise!) is in one of the most gorgeous areas. Sunrises of great beauty, salt marsh with egrets, ospreys, and herons with eagles circling overhead, muskrats (pronounced by the locals as "mushrats"), and over 13 acres of wild unaltered wildlife habitat which we own.

Leave it? That's tougher than you think.

Paul #126 #74 was taling about a 25cm (10 inch) rise which would lead to a the water moving a whole 8 feet inland not upwards. Since this is in line with thousands of years of minor sea level rise to spend several times the $400 million Kyoto costs daily just on the chance seems bizarre.

In any case we know that we could cutCO2 far more massively by going nuclear - the fact that the Greens, FoI, oppose the onlymeasure that would stop their putative catastrophe means they know they are spinning a line.

Things are getting a bit out of hand here.

#33 Jimmo

I agree 100% and would urge others to read the material available at:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/...

The adversarial nature of this debate obstructs our ability to address the problems for the human race which will inevitably accrue from climatic variations.

Diseases, lack of potable water, and a couple of core items which I forget, will remain the greatest problems for the majority of the world's population no matter what climatic variations occur. Keep your minds on the ball!

This won't change the debate in the U.S., even if it does come on the heals of Bush finally admitting there's something to it. The Deniers and Delayers are still going to grasp at the "10% chance", or they'll simply dismiss it because it came from the U.N. Forget all those peer reviewed studies that say otherwise.

Nothing short of the complete flooding of Florida or back to back to back seasons of five category 5 hurricanes slamming into the U.S. coast is going to cause the government in the U.S. to make any substantive changes. There's too much money at stake.

#130 Paul S: I can identify with your position and I am certain that it must be an absolutely amazing home. But if you feel that it could one day be swallowed up by erosion or high tides then you will NEED to move regardless of how tough a decision that may be...

I am not a believer in all this global warming scare mongering. Had your home been where it is 64 million years ago then the ocean under it would have measured 30 degrees celcius warmer than they do now. Makes ye think dont it?

All this hot air...

In the UK, the reality is that the argument is virtually won. The general public now accept that Climate Change is happening in one form or another. Of course there are sceptics, but they are in the minority.
Forums like this only really attract the same people and opinions over and over again. Nothing is ever resolved, proven, believed, convincing etc.

Fortunately, the Government and the opposition parties all realise that the majority will agree to, in fact expect, environmental taxation. No election strategy is going to be foolhardy enough to attempt to shun both the scientific and public opinions.

Taxes are on the cards, and reductions will eventually follow. Its a done deal.

Ok people, how many of those on this posting have any scientific credibility to back up what they are saying? guga? Normally your posts are quite sensible but not today. As an environmental geoscientist with a lot of years studying the subject it is very clear to me that climate change is happening. This comes from studying scientific facts and reading thousands of peer-reviewed articles in respected journals. People who spout off nonsense after reading a few articles in a rag like the scotsman have no place in this debate.

Climate change is not as simple as 'global warming' or 'sea level rise'. Quoting that ice field x will rise by y mm per year does not say anything about the global picture. As the system is distorted by human interference, some places will warm while others cool, some areas will get wetter while others experience desertification.

How many of the climate change denialists on the forum understand the positive feedbacks of ocean warming and the subsequent CO2 release? As the ocean warms very slightly, the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases, and the gas is driven out of solution into the atmosphere. This increases the greenhouse insulation effect, leading to further warming of ocean waters, and so the cycle continues. The volumes of gas involved in this process are enormous, and so a 1 degree celsius change can be amplified greatly.

How many of you fully understand the thermohaline circulation of oceanic waters? Or the biological pump? Or Milankovitch cycles in orbital forcing? If you did it would be clear to you that we are heading slowly toward a point of no return.
Until you understand these things, your comments lack validity and make you seem naive.

No serious scientist is prophesising the end of the world. It has existed for over four billion years in a state of constant flux, and will continue to exist until the sun burns itself out.
What they are saying is that the window of time in which humans have

#13 Goggsy,

First, let me say as a university educated geologist (baccalaureate) and M.S.-level graduate geophysical fluid dynamicist (oceanographer and meteorologist, in plain terms), there is no question that the climate is warming. We would be foolish to expect otherwise, because the earth's mean atmospheric tempearature at present is still several Celsius degrees cooler than at the peak of the last interglacial period, the warm interval between each pair of the ice ages of which there have been sixteen identified over the past 2,000,000 years. The question is whether what humans are doing is making a significant difference.

There is a problem (or at least an embedded assumption) in your statement that " in the context of the kind of simulation models that produce these results, 90% certain is actually as conclusive a result as you'll ever get". Given the fact that the relevant equations have no known analytic solution (i.e., they are of a class of partial differential equation for which you can't simply write it out, substitute known values for the variables and produce an answer), they use approximations AND what are generally termed "tuning variables". The problem lies especially with the latter. If you tell me what answer you would like, the odds are that I can play with the values of the "tuning variables" and get the model to produce something like the desired result.

As some of the other readers have indicated, from a public standpoint all we are being given are someone's conclusions, not the evidence of PROOF. Until someone publishes peer reviewed scientific evidence that the human contributions to "greenhouse gases" is causing a different pattern than we are able to measure from one or more of the prededing sixteen interglacials, then there is no evidence that we are.

There is an old adage in science, "correlation does not establish causality." It has a corollary, "the abs

On one side we have the Doom & Gloomers. On the other, the ostriches. I'm aiming for the middle: yes, it's a cyclical climate change on our wee blue planet but yes, we humans have been greedy and messy, so it behooves us to clean up our collective act.

I think mothership Earth would appreciate it.

#137 & 138: enjoyed your posts. Thanks.

#8: You get the "Silly Pea" award for the day. ;o)

#137 Proudscot

Just curious, are you getting a nice grant while you're gently bobbing across the timmor sea?

“WE SIMPLY CANNOT AFFORD TO GAMBLE..BY IGNORING IT. WE CANNOT RISK INACTION. THOSE SCIENTISTS WHO SAY WE ARE MERELY ENTERING A PERIOD OF CLIMATIC INSTABILITY ARE ACTING IRRESPONSIBLY. THE INDICATIONS THAT OUR CLIMATE CAN SOON CHANGE FOR THE WORSE ARE TOO STRONG TO BE REASONABLY IGNORED.” 1978. Lowell Ponte, The Cooling, p237.

Familiar language, isn’t it? But it’s not about global warming, it’s about global cooling. Fear of a new ice age. Anybody here worried about a new ice age? Anybody upset we didn’t act now, back then, to stockpile food and do all the other things we were warned we had to do?

Have you been OUTSIDE lately? I have and I can say from personal experience we HAVE global warming. My grandmother, who lived to 99, noticed the warming, I have noticed the warming and now with all the scientific data the UN has noticed the warming. It's happeniing. So, what are we as citizens of the world going to do about it?? Drive less, use less fossil fuels, less polluting-probably not. Because you have those who have their heads in the sand.
As for the comment about all the Europeans moving to Scotland-we Southern's want to return, too-will you have room for all us ex-pats, regardless of number of generations of removal? Hope so!

"Believe these things or not, it's your choice, but I think it's important to get informed before spouting off on a public forum."

PROUDSCOT GENTLY BOBBING ACROSS THE TIMOR.
Calm down it is as you say a public forum, people are fully entitled to "spout of," that is what the www is all about, the free flow of information and ideas. What makes you an expert. What do you have to say to this...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006...

Julia.

ROLL TIDE

This is a report by a collection of weather scientists and UN bureaucrats who want more money and control over everyone's lives. If the alleged global warming is indeed a human caused problem, any solution that doesn't involve a drastic reduction in human population is a complete and total waste of time. However, whether the alleged global warming is a human caused problem or not is highly debatable. Just check out the discussion of "ice age" in Wikipedia.

Having filled a pint pot with ice cubes, as instructed by George, and brimmed it with water. We observed that all the ice has now melted and the level of the water has not increased but decreased very slightly. So will some scientist please explain what is going on.
Either the glaciers are melting and we are going to be engulfed in sea water, or someone is talking bollocks. Which is it please?

143 JULIA

We have loads of space :>)--]--------<

138 I don't doubt your intelligence or your qualifications, but your last number threw me. "thirty meters above the current mean sea level" Not sure what you meant. 100 ft is pretty darn drastic.

In 2001, IPCC's (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) The Third Assessment Report IPCC predicted that by 2100, global warming will lead to a sea level rise of 9 to 88 cm. At that time no significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected. Subsequently, Church and White found acceleration of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm/yr².

88 centimeters is no 30 meters. If I've misunderstood you please explain. I'm just trying to understand not nit pick.

Sambo--------oooppsss!!! WAR EAGLE!!!
Where you???

Julia, Huntsville

Given the broad knowledge on the internet, lets find out the following:
How many of these scientists are actually climatologists? Climatologists are scientists, but not all scientists are climatologists. Note, not a single one of these UN documents says 2,500 Climatololists are in consensus.
Here's the definition of climatologitst as you examine the resumes of these 2,500 scientists.
Climatology is the study of climate, or past weather, and is a branch of the atmospheric sciences. In contrast to meteorology, which studies short term weather systems lasting up to a few weeks, climatology studies the frequency with which these weather systems occurred in the past. It studies the periodicity of weather events over years to millennia, as well as changes in long-term average weather patterns, in relation to atmospheric conditions. Climatologists, those who practice climatology, study both the nature of climates - local, regional or global - and the natural or human-induced factors that cause climates to change. Climatology considers the past and can help predict future climate change.
Phenomena of climatological interest include the atmospheric boundary layer, circulation patterns, heat transfer (radiative, convective and latent), interactions between the atmosphere and the oceans and land surface (particularly vegetation, land use and topography), and the chemical and physical composition of the atmosphere. Related disciplines include chemistry, ecology, geology, geophysics, glaciology, hydrology, oceanography, and volcanology.
Climatology is approached in a variety of ways. Paleoclimatology seeks to reconstruct past climates by examining records such as ice cores and tree rings (dendroclimatology). The study of contemporary climates incorporates meteorological data accumulated over many years, such as records of rainfall, temperature and atmospheric composition. Knowledge of the atmosphere and its dynamics is also embodied in models, eith

As the old saying goes "money talks and bulls**t walks"

2. Climate Models Assumptions for you math-aholics
How many variables are in these models?
What are they?
Do they comprehend the total complexity of our climate?
What is the percent certainty for each one of these variables?

If you assume 100 variables (questionable if these are complete) and assume 99% certainty of accuracy (highly unlikely) the probability that your computer model accurately predicts the climate is about one-third of the time. Hardly the 90% accuracy as claimed.

Look this arguement about melting ice raising or not raising seawater is a non starter, here's why.
1) True freezing water expands, therefore it is less dense than water and takes up more space.
2) Because of this it floats so does not increase existing water levels.
3) Temperature rises, ice melts, and adds to the quantity of water in the ocean.
4) The pint glass experiment place half a pint of water in bottom of glass, Place half a pint of frozen on top of water, it will float. Water level will be half way up glass. Let ice melt, you now have a pint of water, and the water level has risen to the top of glass. Simple or not, you tell me.

"Turkey Lurkey told me," said Gander Pander.
"Goosey Poosey told me," said Turkey Lurkey.
"Ducky Daddies told me," said Goosey Poosey.
"Cocky Locky told me," said Ducky Daddies.
"Henny Penny told me," said Cocky Locky.
"Chicken Little told me," said Henny Penny.
"A piece of it fell on my head," cried Chicken Little, "and we are going to tell the King."

#131 Dead right.

If, as the tree-huggers say, climate change is down to burning fossil fuels then switching to nuclear power would go a long way to solving the problem in the long term.

The difficulty is that I have yet to meet or hear of a tree-hugger who knows the difference between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. They all seem to be of the opinion that building nuclear power stations all over the world is no different than giving everyone several nuclear bombs to play around with.

You see, this is the level of intelligence that we are dealing with. These guys have a world platform and frankly that thought is damn scary!

I agree that fossil fuels have to be conserved because they are by definition, finite. However, as advances in technology are made, fossil fuels will be used less and less. Alternative fuels will be found and alternative ways of doing things will be found.

Personally I don't believe a word when someone tries to sell the CO2/Climate Change thing to me. The only type of person that attempts that is a tree-hugger of the kind mentioned above. When they start seeing sense and making believeable statements regarding nuclear power then I may start to take other things they say seriously. Until then, I'll treat tham with the contempt that they deserve.

Another thought... In light of all this climate change that is going to happen, is anyone actually doing anything to perpare for it? We are all being told it is "inevitable". What is being done to accommodate the inevitable? After all, it's going to happen. Isn't it? If we act now, we have plenty of time to prepare for it. If we don't act, then what kind of mess are we going to be in?

Increasing taxes on fuel isn't going to help. All that will do is increase inflation. Besides, burning fossil fuels is not the problem here. This is a natural phenomenum we are experiencing.

Paul S, take note of this. No-one ever said change was going to be easy!

152 In America it's spelled meter as in millimeter, kilometer, etc...

The scientists say that it may rise between a metre and a decimeter this century. I haven't seen Gore's movie, but those figures don't gibe. Does he mean in 700 years?

or 7000 years?

I believe that the earth is always changing temp. It seems logical to me that perhaps humans are responsible in some degree for the increasing temperature, how much is beyond our knowledge. I also believe that a warming planet may bring great benefits to mankind.

what the "scientists" never tell you is that the biggest polluters are the 3 rd world countries !

they not only burn wood - very polluting - even worse , they chop down trees to do it.

there are billions and billions of these wood burning people around the world compared to the few millions who own cars !

and the flatulence of the cows and goats the 3rd world people raise further addds to pollution.

climate warming may be the answer by helping to eliminate these polluters once and for all and leaving more air for civilized people to breathe.

REMEMBER - IT IS ALL PART OF GODS PLAN

157 ARTHUR.
If the Arctic is floating ice, and it melts you are saying that the sea will rise. If you have a pint pot fill with ice and water to the top and it does not flood over when it melts then it seems to me to be the same. However, maybe I am just thick, or maybe I am not looking through the same glass as you. But if you start your post with, "look," you start to sound like Adam Ingram, and he is an arrogant bigoted oaf who I despise. There is a right way and a wrong way.

The lack of snow on Kilimanjaro is supposed to be yet another harbinger of impending doom and absolute proof that the planet is warming.
The contrary view is that since the end of colonialism in Africa, there has been mass deforestation in the area, with a consequent loss of moisture in the local climate which has changed the weather pattern? Which do we believe?

THE NUMBER 2 POST ON THIS TOPIC HITS THE NAIL ON THE HEAD, AND HARD. TOO MANY FLATULENT ANIMALS CREATE A WORLD WIDE PROBLEM, DESTROYING THE ATMOSPHERE.

WORSE YET MANY GOVERNMENTS SUBSIDIZE THE OWNERS OF THES POLLUTERS !

NOW THOSE SAME GOVERNMENTS WILL LOOK FOR WAYS TO TAX EVERYONE TO "FIGHT POLLUTION"

THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS TO REDUCE COWS, SHEEP GOATS ETC BY 80 % WORLDWIDE AND WATCH THE AIR CLEAN UP. AND IF THE FOLKS DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR BEASTS THEY CAN GO TOO - THERE ARE TOO MANY OF THEM ANYWAY, AND THEY ARE BREATHING AND POLLUTING
-O U R - AIR !

167 why shout

Everyone should have a look at <www.co2science.org>; for some common sense.

Reality is, elevated CO2 has no correleation with temperature rise. Another reality is that an additional 300 ppm of CO2 will increase seed yields (read: wheat, soybeans, etc) by about 40%, helping to produce more food for an ever-growing world population.

If the Arctic ice melts the water levels wont rise, its just ice, but if antarctic ice melts we're in trouble because it is a solid landmass.

Approx 30 years ago there was an article written warning of "Global Cooling". The scientists wanted to put sulfur on glaciers to melt them.

#34- fatboyslim- Are you smoking the sap from that tree you're hugging?
Do you know that it takes fuel to run the electricity so that you can use the computer (which is not bio-degradeable) to post your 10 point plan for saving the world.

I've come to the conclusion Media 1 is a waste of space and won't be missed once he is swallowed up by the rising sea levels.

Apart from that, not much else to say as it's all been said.

One problem with the net is that anybody can come on here & claim they outrank everybody else here because they have a nobel prize a written endorsedment from God.

Posts 137 & coincidentally 138 claim somewhat lesser qualifications but I suggest that any real climate scientist would have enough understanding of how little anybody knows of "positive feedbacks of ocean warming and the subsequent CO2 release" not to claim to reallyunderstand it.

Equally any true impartial scientist would have criticised Rules 152's ignorant claim that global warming will cause tidal surges of 7 metres. Tides are caused by the Moon & global warming is not going to increase the Moon's mass fivefold.

Digger Dawg 136 may be right that, in a very Orwellian way, the governments & media have persuaded the majority of people that catastrophic warming is true. While entirely relevant to how far we can trust our government & the obedient media this is entirely irrelevant to whether it is true. All Al Gore's spouting about black being white did not make 2006 warmer than 1998, nor will it do so for 2007.

The reason there is a lack of meeting of minds is that some things cannot be compromised they either are or aren't. It is probable that there has been some warming & who knows we may get more. It is not possible to honestly claim that we have evidence that would make more than a very small portion of it man made, that it is beyond historical parameters or consequently that there is any reason to expect catastrophe. #

PS The government's Sir Alan Thorpe hqpo@nerc.ac.uk recently publicly challenged the sceptics to debate publicly & online warming & since having it accepted has been, assuming he is sincere, somewhere where emails do not reach. When real scientists do not dare defend this story it left up to the erzatz ones mentioned above.

This comment is being forwarded to him & if he has returned from the Earth's

These scientists must have had mutliple gorebasms while watching the film "the inconvenient truth".

Are these scientist knocking of the doors of the Chinese and Indian goverments etc and preaching to them as they are the worst polluters on earth at the moment.
Yes guys these countries are exempt under the Kiyoto (not sure if that is the correct spelling) agreement on global warming, because they are growing economies.
Excuse my ignorance but doesn't their pollution add to global warming?
They say the polar ice caps are melting well sure they are and have been for thousands of years. Put a block of ice at opposite ends of a room and hang a heater from the ceiling in the middle of the room. Guess what the ice will star to melt and the smaller the blocks of ice get the faster the blocks melt. NO different with the earth and sun.
There again what do I know

I am writing to you today from a place that at various times in the past has had up to 1.5 Km of glacier in place, to having various inland seas and rivers of biblical dimensions, to having mud flows over 1 Km thick, to having lave flows, etc.

Coincidentally, I am writing from a place that is currently temperate, but in the past has been an ice dessert, a tropical jungle, a dry desert, a salt sea, a fresh water sea, and in the process has seen just about every species that ever existed that walked, crawled, swam or flew.

The point is; 'Global warming'? 'Climate change'? ..... duh? ..... its called 'Earth'.

This is the way it is and the way has always been and 'man's' role in changing it has been so microscopic as to be statistacally insignificant.

The notion that now or in the future 'man's' actions could in any way affect, alter or prevent what may be coming in the next 1,000 or 1,000,000 years is nothing but a human-egocentric wet dream. As a species in the universe we are so insigificant as to barely register.

What we do have to do, however, is to adapt and evolve - or we will reach our inevitable extinction that much sooner.

As regards what we can do now to materially alter this 'climate change'? Absolutely nothing. I understand that we are number nine down the list of 'causes' of such changes, bind minor things like the sun, earth's internal energy, volvanoes, insects, other mamalian species, plants, algae, bacteria, etc., etc. And, all that fossil fuel? It's been here, on this rock, nearly forever in some form or another.

We can put a microscopic bandage on the huge gaping wound that is the inevitable change in store for this lump of rock whizzing through space, in the form of teporarily making out air, water and land cleaner. But, that's like rearranging the toothpicks on the Titanic.

Don't kid yourself in the long term - we're toast! Deal with it.

In the meatime, if we could only rid ourselves of the w

why are we only ever given one side of the argument (jobs and research grants perhaps?)
we are not being educated we are being brainwashed, we are not receiving information but propoganda; where are the counter arguments, i have found some from eminent scientists but i have had to look hard, why are their views apparently supressed ?

This report only goes to prove that the UK Government have been right to take climate change so seriously. I hope the Government continue to put the necessary legislation in place.

Which Legislation would that be 180). Would it be something like Canute legislating against the tide coming in?

Quick lets ban something! I know, why don't we increase tax on everything 1000%, that's a really mature management strategy for population growth and [supposed] climate change.

Yet another attempt by the looney left to do a power-grab and shame us honest hard-working folk into giving up more of our rights so that they can feel better about saving the planet. Any facts can be twisted to suit any agenda but the Global Warming brigade go one step further. They expect us to swallow uninformed and unproven hypothesis as fact.

It wasn't so long ago that you could get locked up for claiming the earth was round and that IT revolved around the sun. Back then these things were proven and accepted scientific facts.

But, Limousine Liberals and Champagne Socialists, don't let the facts, or the lack of them, get in the way of another risible, tiresome and hysterical argument.

178) That's paranoia you are displaying there. Look all the peer reviewed research papers are published.
Read them if you have the ability to understand and analyse them make up your own mind from what you read. Nothing is being kept secret, the press just report the juicy bits which cause controversy and sell papers.

182) Yes and it was the good God fearing right wing Neo cons of the vatican that kept the population in the dark and burned people at the stake for heresy (Truth)

Why does nobody take me seriously anymore?

164 Don't look then I'll put it another way LOOK!
Artic, covered by expanded water floating on denser water. Expanded water melts, where does it go?
LOOK! Antartica a frozen continental land mass covered in expanded water, it melts, Where does it go?
You choose, or you tell me, or just make like Canute
that worked for him, didn't it?

Media one,
I take you serious, question. What is your gender?

I'm a closet homosexual Sambo. All my previous homophobia in recent months was bluff.

It's time I showed my true self and not this arrogant, homophobic, racist bully I have portrayed recently.

34) Excellent 10 point plan, what a shame it will never be allowed to work.

Here is my 2 point plan

1) Sterilise everybody at birth
2) Go back to the caves, and hunt for our food once all
the domestic stocks are finished.

Problem solved in a generation, though it will take the planet a lot longer to recover from the excesses of it's missing tennants.

Media one,

I feel your pain, I'm a lesbian trapped in a mans body.

We may slowly be getting rid of the ritualised superstition in this world, which has for centuries held humanity in the grasp of it's ignorant blackmail.
What I see happening now is the ridicule of scientists
who are not the new priesthood, or even prophets, merely the messengers and advisors to our useless leaders. They are the ones who take the message
don't fully understand it, spin it to suit their own agenda
or the agenda of globalisation, pass it on to journalists who understand it even less, spin it even more to the agenda of their paymasters, and spit our paperselling, moneymaking, false controversy, which in it's insidious way distacts us all from the real truth, which the scientists were trying to give us in the first place.
Don't shoot the messengers either because you don't like the message, or because you can't understand it after it has been edited several times, to fool you.
Just think for a moment where humanity would be now if there had not been those who asked what, why, how what if, and most of all can we?

189 Media1, I'll buy you a rainbow flag.

I admit to auto-erotic fixations.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191826.o0m...

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for 100 years: study
Mon Aug 21 08:19:00 2006

Greenland's glaciers have been shrinking for the past century, according to a Danish study, suggesting that the ice melt is not a recent phenomenon caused by global warming....

"164 Don't look then I'll put it another way LOOK!
Artic, covered by expanded water floating on denser water. Expanded water melts, where does it go?
LOOK! Antartica a frozen continental land mass covered in expanded water, it melts, Where does it go?
You choose, or you tell me, or just make like Canute
that worked for him, didn't it?"

ARTHUR LOOK, Your posts would carry more credibility and gravitas if they did not lean so far to the sarcastic. Or are you annoyed that what those you consider to be lesser mortals dare to question your position. I still do not agree with you on the ice cubes thing. Does that make me a bad person. tell me how to rig the experiment to make it show what you say, please??
My original question concerns the Arctic only, for the purpose of this argument.

#182 lancstory=idiot

I see The Village Idiot has been cloned. I wonder if it will now confess to being a cross dressing necrophiliac as we have long suspected.
And confess that everything it writes is done in a chemical induced trance and that it is only trying to draw attention to it self, because of it's rejection by it's siblings and parents.

Dear #126:

You appear to have a reading difficulty.

It's 8 ft SIDEWAYS, not 8 ft UPWARDS. And unless the coastal terrain in the eastern USA is a flat and level as a billiard table (which of course it is not close to being) there is absolutely no reason to expect or worry about any sort of extra flooding over what is normal today; you really won't be able to tell the difference. Literally thousands of miles of both exquisite natural habitat and billions in pricey real estate will not be impacted in the least way.

I did NOT say there would be an 8ft sea level rise. I said we have been experiencing rising sea levels for 18,000 years since the end of the last ice age, and will now continue to experience, a 4 to 10 INCH (10 to 25 cm) sea level rise per century, resulting in the COASTLINE moving about 3 to 8 feet inland on average. This current rate is actually much more gradual than happened right after the end of the ice age, and gradually continues to slow. There is absolutely no evidence whatever that human activity has made an iota of difference to this entirely 100% natural process.

194) What you see as sarcasm is for me tiredness,
tired of explaining the obvious, I cannot understand
why anybody fails to see that if you add water to water you get more water, and it has to go somewhere, ergo the oceans enlarge, the land masses get flooded.
Where is the arguement?

#197
Don't worry he was just having a rise out of you.

183.
you do not understand the meaning of paranoia,i take it you are a 'scientist'?

#137 & #138,

(1) No-one with any sense denies there is gobal warming happening a the moment. The question is, is it natural or artificial, and has it happened before or not. If it is natural, and has happened before, it is futile to try to stop it.

(2) Since all -- ALL -- anthropogenic global warming scare forecasts are based on computer modelling that use in principle the same technique as that employed by weather forcasters, this single Awkward Truth directly sums up the fundamental flaw in any attempt to forecast the climate (which, let us recognise, is but the weather writ large, with probably trillions more known or unknown variables than the alreay trillions upon trillions involved in weather forecasting) over any significant period, let alone a century or so:

"When the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible."

Einstein wrote these words in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, New York (1941); later published in Out of My Later Years (1950).

But now we are supposed to believe these climate "scientists" (I use the term losely) can forecast a system that is in fact vastly more complex than the weather, not over a few days (which still can't be bettered for the weather, you may have noticed) but over a century.

Yeh, right. And that great scientist Al Gore is Princess Zorga of Albania in drag.

So, #137 & #138, are you better scientists than Einstein? Or are you the 21st Century equivalents of King Canute?

Duncan @196

Classic comment mate! The mystery Media One has made first strike!

arrthur, you are tired and need to refresh, mankind is entitled to challenge and question,frustration that your views are not accepted and believed as of right is not an indication of an ignorant public but of an intelligent public and insecure scientific community, what do you fear most, the need to prove that you are right or the fear that you may be wrong?

#198:

"I cannot understand why anybody fails to see that if you add water to water you get more water, and it has to go somewhere, ergo the oceans enlarge, the land masses get flooded.

"Where is the arguement?"

Your position on this is pathetic.

The answer is Archimedes. The Ancient Greeks knew why what happens when icebergs melt is that sea level does not change. If you want to live 2,000 plus years behind the cutting edge of scientific knowledge, please do not continue to inflict your ignorance upon the rest of us.

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

Arthur. Because of the perfectly clear reasoning given by Sir William, I have to conclude that your argument is deeply flawed.
It is also my humble opinion as a layman that the argument on climate and it's cause has as many scientists against as are for. In other words the jury is out and will be for a long time.

#202. Angus.
May he continue to deliver :>)

#203 steve
Well put sir I could not have said it better.

It is my lot to be surrounded by wind up merchants.
Trouble me no further with your closed little mind, and failure to accept obvious physical fact.

It really doesn't matter what happens.

It's no problem for us: POSTERITY PAYS.

Why should we care about the future? We won't be there, so what's all the fuss about. And really, why should we care about what our great grandchildren may or may not have to put up with, we're all right Jack!

Sure, we've a nice planet, but what does it matter to me if it floods, if it bakes, if they fight for water when I'm not around. So what!!! Children and the unborn don't have votes, so they don't count. AND THAT'S A FACT. (Nor do you and I count, so why worry. Leave the world in the hands of those who can't count, they're the only ones who do count...

(What's a fact anyway? Someone, please provide me with a definition. Apparently, the main criterion is that it must coincide with my prejudices this week. And what's science? It seems I've happened upon THE DEFINITIVE SCIENTIFIC CONGRESS, attended by ALL the planet's Great Minds. Wotta PRIVILIDGE, Ooooooh).

I have always been a great admirer of baboons, incredible survival sense. So, folks, we really needn't worry. If humans don't know how to survive, there'll always be other species that'll evolve more successfully and make a better job of it than us. If not baboons, spiders?

Yep, we're all gonna die. I don't think it will happen due to global warming,however. Many,many ect. posts today expressing the yeas and nays. All this means that people ARE taking notice. B.T.W., I checked the thermomiter at noon today, and noticed a veretable heat wave. It was -2C. I guess that means I'll have to situate the house I wish to build in Maine just a bit further back from the Bay of Fundy. (Pardon my spelling, I was raised by wolves).

209) I refer you to article 75 wher I said something similar, without the self opinionated childishness.
Here's a paradox, the debate is not about doomsayers
v ostriches, it is about natural cycles v a possibility that
mans action are increasing these natural cycles.
Point to consider, man is a product of nature, part of nature, therfore what man does is natural so the whole issue boils down to the natural cycle, even here then there is no arguement.

Let's face facts.

And it's not 'the facts' in this report.

We, the Human Race, will continue to burn off the worlds hydrocarbon resources at an ever increasing rate NO MATTER WHAT THIS OR ANY OTHER REPORT SAYS about 'global warmimg'.

This will not change until every last drop of oil, lump of coal or unit of gas has been combusted.

THAT IS A FACT.

#177--conan--california?

Check this out for some quality hydrocarbon fuel consumption:

http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0603/feature4/

Sorry, Arthur, didn't notice 75# amidst so much brilliance. At the same time, self opinionated? or not, we really do need a Swift or an Orwell here. And even if we had one and he could present a hundred Modest Proposals, I really don't see them prevailing over the unstoppable tide of irresponsibility.

What really does surprise me is that: 1. the precautionary principle appears to be quite unknown to so many people; 2. More important: THE CAN'T DO, WON'T DO ATTITUDE. Can't anyone stop a moment and see the immense OPPORTUNITIES that come with these dangers?

Now I must be off and mark the neighbour's doorstep tomcat fashion, just to test cause and effect. And, I do hope the gas bill never comes. Even if it does, someone here can surely advise me of 100 000 ways of not paying it.

As for childishness... seems most contributors are adults. Might be interesting to see what the little ones might make of all this... Let's take a shower now, and good night to all ye wise folk... Sweet dreams.

#213, hello Sandy - no, not CA, or in my native tongue; Fanija Sandy-je, naomma CA, se sa.

#201 Sit William Arroll

I make no claim to be a "better scientist" than Einstein. In point of fact, as I thought my post clearly suggested, I am aware of NO actual hard scientific evidence of anthropogenic climate change that has been published. That was the point of my reference to "the absence of correlation." The lack of clear data correlating with the observed changes in mean global temperatures is stunningly eloquent in suggesting that our (i.e., human) contribution to the observed warming to date is not having the significant effects that the climatological community asserts to be the case.

I will believe the climate "scientists" when they publish actual, peer-reviewed research results that show a clear correlation between greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activity and the observed changes in mean global temperature, not before.

So, you and I share similar views about the current levels of alarmism being broadcast as though it were established scientific truth, and probably about Al Gore for that matter.

However, if the climate is going to warm by about two additional degrees Celsius, then sea level will rise relative to land. I mis-spoke when I mentioned 30 metres in my post, it will be more of the order of 10 metres (ca. 30 feet), if all of the ice melts and sea temperatures rise to levels comparable to previous interglacials.

I apologize for using my native (American English) spelling for metres in my first post--I had no idea it would make my point so inscrutable.

Kind regards

you have no argument, you have resorted to the last argument of one who can reason no further,you simply insult the arguments of those who differ to you.
trust nature, she knows best and she always wins.

Mars is unable to sustain Carbon Doixide hence no greenhouse effect.
I am willing to organise moving you and your goods to Mars. Please register your interest by posting on this site and I will tell you where to send you $500,000 deposit.

Be sure to pack plent warm clothes as it's a wee bit chilly up there

#182 lancstory=idiot

Devastating intellect and reasoning there. The same kind of intellect that somehow marks a Scotsman out as a traitor if he makes a living for himself in England. True Scot? Yer erse.

Away back to your shortbread, Corries CD, Hairy Highlander and getting misty eyed over too much whisky. I'll stick to not attacking people for the views they hold and pretending I'm better than other people.

Oh Maria!, Dios mio!!, YOU PEOPLE, YOUR BRAIN ARE POLLUTED BY "GLOBAL WARMING", ITS NOT 'CAUSE' BY HUMANS, CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND!!!? ITS NATURE!! MAKE IT 'DIRECT TO THE POINT'!!! A VERY "SIMPLE EXPLANATION' IS THE " LAST ICE AGE, LAST ICE AGED' HOW ! HOW! THAT HAPPEN? THERE'S NO POLLUTION ON THAT 'LAST ICE AGED' AL GORE IS A 'LIAR' EVEN A SCIENTIST CANNOT EXPLAIN "THE LAST ICE AGE'!!! ask your GOD.

Lets blame it on Bush and Blair and all move on to the next article.

Sounds like a very good way to get disattached to the European Union fast. Currently the UK is beginning to understand that they have allowed the permanent influx of all peoples belonging to the European Union and soon next year I believe WILL be required to accept the Euro. If they scare enough people with this article to empower a great force of Anti-European Union Voters now, maybe the climate will all go back to normal and you can stop all the influx of unwanted types flooding into the UK. LEAKED! What scientist? Or, Politician leaked this article? Hummmmmmmmmmm!

high northern altitudes getting warmer - the Montrose Med? the Dundee Delta? the Aberdeen Costa (allright, that's stretching it)........Surely we shouldn't claim if Scotland gets better weather, we won't need to fly to Spain for crappy beaches & bad beer - pints of heavy on Broughty beach, just the ticket, I'm all for burning those fossil fuels!

'we shouldn't claim'?? - obviously meant to say 'complain', must've been getting excited about those future Scottish summers.....

216--NZ?--HI?--if not, research is needed, & i'll discover the location, just don't divulge it, ok? i've tried the language, to no avail. i'll get it..............

#220--LancsTory---re-#182, great post! don't bother w/this "knee-jerk reactionary" @195, for it's obvious he has nothing to contribute to the discussion. BTW...snow the last 2.1/2 wks, temp. range-7F-21F......it's lovely! don't you just hate "global warming"?

Quite soon, Scotland will be most of the UK!

http://www.monmouthshiregreenweb.co.uk/aandcfoe/images/wa...

#208

On the contrary, it is open minds that challenge conventional thinking that saves the day. Always has been. I bet when Ork first showed his new invention of "the wheel," to his peers he was laughed out of the cave.

I can guarantee without a doubt in my mind that if all the haarp facilities were dismantled and the planes quit spraying the chemicals, global warming/climate change would end the next day. The problem isn't just with the people polluting,the main problem lies with the people manufacturing the products that pollute.

Polar ice on Mars is melting too. SUVs?

#220 lancstory - are you insecure about working in england? how is it relevant to the debate?
as for the corries, whisky, and highlanders none of that's really relevant to me as a twenty-something from ayrshire, but nice try.

#141 sambo - no research grant for me, just plain old hard graft like most people. i actually spend the majority of my income repaying those wonderful 'interest free' student loans the government provided. such is life eh?

#169 canadian pundit - i believe that website is sponsored by exxon/esso who have a vested interest in disproving climate change, so it may not be fully reliable.

#201 sir william - i appreciate that you provided a counter argument rather than simply a personal attack, thank you. i don't claim to be smarter than einstein at all, but coming along later gives present day scientists the opportunity to stand on the shoulders of such giants, and using advanced technology allows us to predict change more accurately than in einstein's day.
However, the point you make about climate change forecasting being linked to meteorological forecasting is not fully accurate. The point I make in #137 is that warming of the ocean can lead to runaway warming of the atmosphere once a threshold level is crossed.
Ocean circulation is well understood and prediction is nowhere near as difficult as atmospheric (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline_circulation).
The CO2 solubility issue i mention was proven in 1803 so it's hardly groundbreaking stuff (Henry's Law, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Henry_%28chemist%29).
That increased CO2 in the atmosphere would cause general warming is also long established (1896, http://web.lemoyne.edu/~giunta/Arrhenius.html

GLOBAL WARMING?...........POLAR SHIFT

The Shift Is Happening - The Real Cause of Global Warming
Gregg Braden is probably the most recognized person who is evaluating and revealing the scientific phenomena pointing to this shift. He became intrigued with all this when he was working for Phillips Petroleum in the late 1970s and noticed that the magnetics of the earth were at their lowest
point in 2000 years and decreasing at a rapid rate.

#18...This shift would also correlate with your statement.

While being interviewed Gregg Braden stated the following.

Wynn: Is it true that the magnetic poles of the earth are in the process of shifting right now?

Gregg: In May-June-July of 2002, it was very well acknowledged and esteemed scientific journals actually were saying for the first time that we are in
the process of a polar reversal.

Back in the 1960s, geologists were certain that the earth periodically went through a reversal. They could tell from core samples, ice samples, and
fossils, as well as magnetized particles that were locked into certain positions in the rock of the earth. Geologists were so certain about this phenomenon that they actually mapped out the last four-and-a-half-million years, and the resulting records suggested that the earth has gone through fourteen of these polar reversals.

At that time, back in 1961 and 1962, scientists felt that the last pole reversal occurred at about the time of the last Ice Age, ten to twelve thousand years ago. And they were certain it would happen again, but not for thousands of years, so it was nothing to worry about.

But through the 1990s, geologists continued to refine this kind of information. They had been saying it took thousands of years for this to happen. Then they began to say, "Well, it can happen in hundreds of years." But now, recent evidence from some of the ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica say that it could happen in as l

.......contd
But what happened in the May-June-July time frame of 2002 is that journalssuch as Nature, Science, Scientific American, and New Scientist released reports saying that we are definitely in the process of a magnetic reversal,and the AP wires picked it up.

Scientists have no idea what the impact is going to be to electronic and electromagnetic power grids. But even more, they don't know what it means to
human immune systems. Alternative healing modalities have shown a connection between magnetics and the immune system, which also would imply that our immune systems could very well be keyed into the magnetic fields of the
earth.

We know that birds and animals migrate along the lines of these magnetic fields. So there is speculation that the changes taking place in the
magnetic field are responsible for the changing migratory patterns in birds that have been recorded in Asia and North America.

The change in the fields also may explain why whales are beaching themselves. The lines of navigation that the whales have always followed
have shifted and now lead them onto a beach. When we take them back out into the water and set them free, they continue to align themselves with the same magnetic lines, and in following them, they end up on the beach again.

So, yes, it's common knowledge now. The most respected scientific journals say that we're in this shift. And even though we don't know precisely what
that means, it's significant that it is being acknowledged in peer-review kinds of literature, and not just in speculative or pseudo-scientific
magazines.

Wynn: When was this magnetic shift first acknowledged?

Gregg: It would have been in the June/July time frame of 2002. People were sending me emails that they had seen it, and giving me references. I also
found references in the magazines myself.

Wynn: Would we survive a complete pole shift?

Gregg: Any answer to that questio

.........contd
The ancient Hebrews took it as a sign that one
side was receiving celestial assistance, because it stayed light long enough
for the battle to complete in their favor.

We can't verify this in the rock or fossil records, because 3,600 years is too short a period of time for such an event to be reflected there. All we
have to go by are traditions, legends, and myths preserved in oral and written documents.

What the trandition tells us, however, is that if something like this were to happen, the people of the earth would live through it. It would have to
be a really strange day to live through, but if the ancient legends are true, it happened and the people apparently survived. However, we don't know
how it affected their lives.

There is lots of information regarding polar shift on the web, I advise anybody worried about global warming to check it out as it has appeared to have escaped the attention of the main stream media for purposes that I can only surmise.
...tax hikes?....perhaps