enhanced by
Bookmark:
I blame the media for the alarmist nonsense that's caused this lack of sleep. Take a bow Scotsman! Take a bow Greenpeace, FoE and others! Take a bow everyone who wants Al Gore's fantasy shown in schools! Take a bow everyone who won't look at the data in fear that it contradicts their alrmism.
For goodness sake, will sopmebody actually get honest with these kids and tell them there's been no increase in the last 5 years - perhaps you don't want to be honest in fear that you'll lose your audience.
In the course of my lifetime children have been terrorised by predictions of nuclear war, AIDS epidemics, satanic child abuse, mad cow disease now this...what's next???
That's right, blame the media... they're just a useless, bunch of overpaid windbags after all. Well, actually, no they're not although they are a convenient whipping boy for those without much imagination.
How about JDM takes some parental responsibility for what his kids see rather than have a go at the media.
And I'll wager a significant amount of money that if the media didn't report on the difficulties faced by the environment that JDM would get right up them again for dereliction of their duty.
I'm delighted to see some alternative view points, like Al Gore's, get some useful coverage in the media for a change - it makes a nice change from the climate change deniers who have had free reign for too long.
And one other point... perhaps people like JDM could look on this as a great opportunity to teach their children how to navigate the media and to become intelligent, independent people who are aware that there is no such thing as truth, just different opinions.
It's not just the kids that should be loosing sleep here! And the One's who think that Climate Change / Global Warming is made up, well have them write back an comment in five years. We'll see what their view point is at that time.
My heart goes out to ALL the little ones of our world.s They will be forced to deal with, and try to survive from what man had set into action for them!
Wake up people, this is as real as it gets!
The scariest thing about this article is the "one in seven" think their parents aren't doing enough for the environment. Already with a policing mentality.
well said #1 JDM...congratulations rumour monger ba*tards..proud of yourselves are ya?
Suntannedexile, ... there would be no problem with what you say if the data supported your claims but sadly, like many a misguided environmental evangelist, it doesn't.
Climate change deniers have had free reign too long? Who are you in your misguided data-ignorant world to make such a claim? Show me the evidence !!
There is none. It's more alarmistfantasy like the cretinous Gore.
Gore's nonsense, along with the Stern Report and the IPCC SUMMARY has been been lauded as gospel by the media and the politicians and any refutation from qualified scientists (and for SR, economists) has been ignored. Svensmark's work has been ignored by the media too despite it holding promise - note that i don't think the evidence is quite there yet.
(See also "Cosmic ray study fails to penetrate lead-lined media." at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220341,00.html - oh look! He says "may very well turn out to be one of the most important climate experiments of our time" - again, not entirely convinced but at least very interested. )
Who (or what) decides what the population at large should be told? It's the rabid evangelists of global warming - despite it not happening for 5 years - like Rueters, AFP, The Guardian, The Scotsman, The Independent, the BBC ... did I mention The Scotsman ?
How about these "alternative views" Suntannedexile? How about a look at the temperature data too?
You want the truth Suntannedinexile? You just can't handle the truth!
#7 Geez -- that's enough tae make ya wake up screaming in the night.
It's our kids will have to deal with it after most of us are gone.
Now if that isn't the best excuse for a party, I don't know what is!
Re #1 JDM
Honest JDM? What is honest about cherry-picking data about the last five years and pretending that it has significance, as you are doing? What is honest about your absurd pretence that those organisations you mention don’t “look at the data”? The last five years to which you refer make up, along with 1998, the six globally hottest years ever recorded. The smoothed graph for those years continues upwards, as it has continuously since 1966.Anyone who looks at the graph, available here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/
can see that individual years vary considerably, and always have.
If this was the year 1990, no doubt we would have scientific illiterates like JDM telling us that global warming had stopped since 1983, since the temperatures are as follows (temperatures in degrees Celsius compared with 1961-1990 mean, from above CRU site – click on Comma-Separated Values):
1983 0.1771984 -0.0211985 -0.0371986 0.031987 0.1791988 0.181989 0.104
Here again a period of little or no increase for several years follows the abnormally warm year of 1983, just as the abnormally warm year of 1998 has yet to be exceeded and is used by JDM for his falsehoods. In fact, both 1983 and 1998 were El Nino years, when large amounts of heat are released from the Pacific, causing a global increase in temperature of up to c0.2C. See also CRU sheet 2 and look under El Niño and La Niña to see a graph of these effects in more detail.
"We are here on earth to fart around. Don't let anybody tell you any different."Kurt Vonnegut
Slioch
Stay the hell away from my kids. You are a dangerous nut.
11. YaneDid I read somewhere that methane has something to do with global warming?...........
Methane is 30 times more an active green house gas than CO2.
We don't produce less than 30 times methane than C2. It is a concern for some.
This is low level child abuse.
The 1966 Education Act specificly requires that children not be subjected to political material without getting the other side. Gore's film is proveably not merely not impartial but specificly untruthful. Ross Finnie saying that anybody who says that must be "from Mars" dies not affect the facts & the consequent illegality.
On such dishonesty is the entire Ludddite case built.
Catastrophic global warming is a scam to frighten adults & children.
Slioch's graph shows that recent years have all been cooler than 1999. Moreover, even "smoothed" the line now shows the increase plateauing. Moreoverer even if ine extrapolated the growth rate from 1980 to today of 0.3C one would get an increase of 1C by 2100 (this is the worst case because previous history shows all these graphs have ups & downs). 1C is not remotely catastrophic.
Umm, Dave, you have noticed that methane levels are not currently increasing, although they have done in the past? Meanwhile, CO2 continues merrily upwards. Do you want me to explain it all to you again, starting from the basics, or are you bored of spouting rubbish?
Neil, which bit of AGW is built on real science do you not understand?Hence, it is not political. What is political is how much people value things, and what they think should be done about the consequences of warming.
Tell me, is it child abuse to tell children to do well in exams or their life prospects will be damaged?Or to tell them via adverts that if they don't have the latest fashionable item, that they are not cool?
Plus Neil, you appear unable to read a graph. The one Slioch links to shows that 1999, the year after 1998 (You know, the El Nino year?) is cooler than the past 5 years.
Typical, put the frighteners on kids, and other weak minded individuals, with junk science.
John M, Melbourne’s intemperate post at #7 again mentions the falsehood of “global warming - …not happening for 5 years” that his fellow Melbournian #1 JDM produced (is there something in the water?). I addressed these points (for the umteenth time) earlier at #10. The first I saw of this nonsense about the last five years was in an article in the UK Daily Telegraph (April 9th 2006) by Bob Carter from James Cook University, Queensland. Interestingly, Bob Carter gave a talk called “Global warming Hysteria” to the Melbourne Rotary Club (June 15th 2005) – perhaps JDM and John M were there and managed to get his autograph.
John M also mentions the Svensmark work, which has received plenty of publicity. If anyone wishes to read some sensible discussion about this, I suggest the www.realclimate.org web site for 12 Feb 2007 “Nigel Calder in the Times” and also:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/tak...
The best that can be said for Svensmark’s work is that it is worth keeping an eye on, but as yet it has demonstrated no actual climatic effect. What I also find interesting is that John M mentions this work, but he has repeatedly failed to answer the question I have put to him several time in the over the last ten weeks, namely:
“You agree that greenhouse gases are largely responsible for warming this planet from about -20C to its current liveable temperatures. Do you agree that CO2 is one of those gases?”
Well, do you? Do you agree that CO2 does have an actual climatic effect? If so, why do you pretend it does not exist, whilst grasping at the straw that Svensmark provides?
John M (Melbourne), It was a shame that you did not bring your scientific prowess to bear in the NERC online climate change chalenge. A perfect opportunity for you to demolish the climate change bandwagon with the weight of your incontrivertable evidence, but instead you just complained that NERC was a mouthpiece for govenment spin. Could it be that where your science is concerned, you would rather stay a big (ish) fish in this very little pond of climate change name calling on the Scotsman website?
It would be interesting to know what else children between the ages of 7 and 11 are losing sleep over. Bullying? School performance? Family problems? Certainly, at that age they should not be losing sleep over global warming.
Guthrie I should have written "1998 was warmer than all the succeding years" rather than 1999. Perhaps you would care to explain how an extra year of lower temperatures supports your assertion (for it is purely asertion for which you can apparently neither produce nor discuss evidence) that we are proven to be preceding on an ever upwards line.
It's all in what you choose to believe, but it doesn't half develop some heated debate.Try this linkhttp://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/columns/arti...
Umm, Neil, making a mistype for the year is ok. Claiming that the trend is not upwards is pretty poor going. Here, this explains it better:http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/natural-variation
Suffice to say, your talking through your hat, as usual on this topic.
UNbeliever, I note that it is an anti-global warming opinion piece, although some of it is based upon sound science. That which is based upon sound science does not contradict greatly the consensus on AGW. What it appears to suggest is that one particular natural feedback mechanism is actually helping prevent greater warming from occuring over part of the PAcific.
Please bear in mind that the realclimate.org website referred to in a number of posts is run by several members of the IPCC panel and is therefore likely to back up the orthodox opinion (that GW is caused by humans). It's worth bearing in mind too that the IPCC was set up to find that particular conclusion (ie AGW), so it's not surprising that it tries to play down any arguments to the contrary.
I'm with Slioch on this. I'd like to add a few names to JDM's list of 'scaremongers' aka people who understand or acknowledge the science:Tony BlairGeorge Bush (US Energy Secretary says evidence of human-induced climate change 'incontrovertible')Angela MerkelChinese GovernmentBPAlcoaGeneral ElectricThe National Academies of Science of all the G8 countries plus Brazil, India, China, MexicoShellSwiss ReMunich Re (insurers)All UK political parties (except UKIP, BNP?)Silicon Valley venture capitalistsMy university lecturer (Professor of geography, lectures on climatology, author of 'Weather, Climate and Climate Change' university textbook)
As previously pointed out, 1998 was an El Nino year and therefore unusually hot. 2007 is an El Nino year and is also likely to be unusually hot, over and above the continuing upward trend in global temps.
Moderate temp increases so far (0.6degC over 20th Century) is not a cause for complacency because the forcing i.e. level of CO2 emissions, is increasing fast all the time. 50% of all industrial CO2 has been emitted since 1980, and the rate of emissions continues to increase.
The media doesn't usually attach quantities and timescales to the climate effects associated with warming: this can give the impression that longterm effects (complete melting of icecaps, weakening of Gulf Stream) may happen soon. This is not grounds for dismissing what is projected as rubbish: our entire economic and energy supply system is dependent on pumping out CO2, and we need to change that.
My kids worry about global warming - so much that they have asked me if I still want to be cremated.
What could I say. I'm getting older and I no longer care - surprise me.
This situation is not surprising when we teach children environmental sciences at an age before we have given them the technical or scientific knowledge to adequately judge what they are being taught.
Of course this suits the Fools of the Earth and the other enviro-nazis who want to control the world their way.
Scare the children then tell them that you are the only ones with the answers. Sounds a bit like the old pagan religions to me. If you don't worship the earth the earth will destroy you.
As a child I had no worries about nuclear war or any other world issue because I was too busy doing the things children are supposed to do whilst being taught good science at school so that today I can make my own mind up about these things.
What a load of nonsense. The jury is still definitely out on climate change and the reasons behind it. What really annoys me is that the GW nutters demand that we take it as fact without question. Just pay up, like Milliband, Brown et al want. Remember you lot, never let the facts get in the way of a good scaremongering.
Dr. David DemingUniversity of OklahomaCollege of Earth and Energy
'The amount of climatic warming that has taken place in the past 150 years is poorly constrained, and its cause--human or natural--is unknown. There is no sound scientific basis for predicting future climate change with any degree of certainty. If the climate does warm, it is likely to be beneficial to humanity rather than harmful. In my opinion, it would be foolish to establish national energy policy on the basis of misinformation and irrational hysteria.'
See his full statement to appreciate the kind of pressure put on people to uphold the new religion:
http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543
Whether global warming is true (and as a science teacher I think some of it is), it boarders on abuse to scare young children with facts (or opinions) beyond their ability to comprehend or influence. It does not create "awareness", only fear and despair. It leaves them prey to demogogues.Or is that someone's intention?
Guthrie ine of the comments on the link pointed out that its graph only works by cherry picking data from 1975 on. In response to the authors reply I added:
"You told Kevin regarding starting your graph with 1975 "I’m not cherry-picking, I’m making the presentation more comprehensible by restricting myself to a period during which the trend is approximately linear"
Sorry but you are. You can only get a straight line by restricting your data. Had you restricted your data up to 1998 (as the IPCC in 1998 obviously had to) you would have had a steeper straight line which fitted rather closer to the predicted 3 C rise by 2100. Your flatter line showing a 0.5C over 32 years implies, if continued, about a 1.5 C rise by then - neither catastrophic nor even unprecidented.
Good statisticians would, to check the validity of their predictions, instead remove the data of statistical anomaly which the theory was first based on since that is already selected data. This means they would use only the data from 1998 to present & the only straight line which can reasonably be drawn there is downwards. This does not prove cooling, since I would be putting more weight on limited data than reasonable, but that is what you have done & picked the data purely because to "make the presentation" you want."
In any case this is a complicated situation in which, even if there were some truth to it, as Tom thinks, it is neither clear nor settled & Gore's film is extreme, scaremongering & indeniably wrong on some facts. As such it is both illegal & abusive to frighten children with it.
If theGW debate were a reasonable one in which both sides were equally committed to the truth this would be accepted on all sides & the "environmentalists" would be quick to dissociate themselves from Gore's "Pacific islanders relocated as the islands vanish" & "20 foot sea level rise" lies.
#25Guthrie,I didn't think it was a particularly anti global warming piece although there are comments regarding the way data is interpreted. I thought it was more illustrative of the fact that we simply don't know enough about the subject to extrapolate the future with any degree of certainty. Seems that until recently this ocean cooling effect was unknown.
Children should not have fear drilled into them to ensure compliance with others beliefs. They should be protected from political issues, not included in them. It would at least be more fair if they given an alternative point of view. I'll bet they haven't been told the following...
Why has the discovery that Co2 buildup occurs after a warming phase and not before it, making it the result and not the cause of warming, been discussed? This one fact alone kills the current warming theory dead. Why do we not hear that 72% of Antarctic ice is thickening by 27 gigatons a year?How warm would it have to have been for the Romans to grow their Scottish vineyards? Skara Brae in the Orkneys was built 5000 years ago when it was much warmer, abandoned when it got too cold. What was the temperature then, and why wasn't it a problem? The Yorkshire Moors were originally a forest, cleared in the middle ages as it was considered a warm place to live, and it certainly must have been, given the kind of dwellings used in those times. So how warm was it? Why has the Government appointed a chief advisor on climate change whom, I have heard, has not published one peer reviewed paper on the subject? Questions that need answering I feel, but no-one ever does. I've asked these questions many times, but no global warming alarmist ever answers me. Until the global warming religion - which is what it increasingly looks like - can bring itself to answer a few questions as opposed to pretending they haven't heard a thing, many of will remain sceptical. Why do I say religion? Well, take a belief that requires total and unquestioning acceptance by the masses, that is condemned as heresy if challenged, the threat of doom and destruction if ignored, and a deity on high who promises salvation... sound familiar?
I often refer to one infamous quote on the subject:“No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.... climate change [provi
Guthrie
You are a fud. Dave never said methane level have risen etc he said that we (or the planet) doesn't produce 30 times less methane than CO2. Therefore, the methane is causing more harm than CO2 as it's 30 times more active.
As it happens, methane emissions are rising merrily too due to the increase in demand for meat and therefoe ruminant livestock therefore more animal farts.
Slioch, you are a fud full stop. Hope to good grace you don't sput your sh*te anywhere anybodies kids.
Just one example (and there are plenty, so don't believe the hype about there being a scientific consensus):
'Moore et al. (2001) analyzed sediment cores from Donard Lake on Baffin Island to produce a 1240-year record of summer temperatures that averaged 2.9°C for the entire period from AD 750-1990. Anomalously warm decades with temperatures as high as 4°C occurred around AD 1000 and 1100; and at the beginning of the 13th century, Donard Lake witnessed "one of the largest climatic transitions in over a millennium," as "average summer temperatures rose rapidly by nearly 2°C from AD 1195-1220, ending in the warmest decade in the record," with temperatures near 4.5°C. This rapid warming of the 13th century was followed by a period of extended warmth that lasted until an abrupt cooling event occurred around AD 1375. The following decade was one of the coldest in the record and represented the onset of the Little Ice Age on Baffin Island, which lasted for 400 years.
At the modern end of the record, a gradual warming trend occurred over the period 1800-1900, followed by a dramatic cooling event in 1900 that brought temperatures back to levels consistent with the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1950. Temperatures then warmed during the 1950s and 1960s, but they have since trended downward toward cooler conditions. In contradiction of model-inspired climatology, this study thus demonstrates the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age on Baffin Island; and it rebuffs the climate-alarmist claim that the latter part of the 20th century experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past thousand years ... at least in this part of the world, which is, however, where CO2-induced global warming is supposed to be most strongly expressed.'
See the CO2science website for much, much more.
Can you no read son? You really are a patronising turd sometimes.
As it happens, Angusmor is correct, methane levels are rising and it doesn't need "googling" to figure that out. For example, China is now one of the largest producers and importers of beef, they have increased their herd size 4 fold in the last 5 years. That means a 4 fold increase in methane production.
Get out more son, really please, get out and stay out.
I’ve looked critically at both sides of this issue and I don’t want my grandchildren to look back and say ” Grandpa was duped by this phony science to”.Don't let Al Gore, a very delusional man, scare your children. I suggest you read to your children the hundreds of articles written by climatologists and paleoclimatologists.
poor weans. I remeber losing sleep over volcanoes and earthquakes untilI foudn out we don't get these inScotland. Thank feck for that I thought as I nicked downstairs to steal some biscuits....
It is difficult to deal with all the issues that have arisen since this morning when I was last here, but I will address a few.
#14 Dave From Barra, Western Isles said, “Methane is 30 times more an active green house gas than CO2.We don't produce less than 30 times methane than CO2.”
Your first sentence is approximately correct, your second sentence is wrong.
Between 1750, (when the industrial revolution started to add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere), and 2005, CO2 and methane concentrations in the atmosphere have changed as follows (from IPCC AR4):
CO2: from 280parts per million volume to 379ppmv, an increase of 99ppmv, causing a “forcing” (increased heating) of 1.66 Watts per metre squared.
Methane: from 0.715ppmv to 1.774ppmv, an increase of 1.059ppm, causing a forcing of 0.48 W/sq. m.
If you work it out this gives methane as about 27 times more potent, molecule for molecule, than CO2.(CO2 = 1.66/99W/sq.m./ppmv=0.0168, methane = 0.48/1.059 W/sq.m./ppmv=0.453. ) (0.453/0.0168 = c.27)
So, methane IS a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, but the amount produced (both anthropogenic and natural) is less than 2% on average of the amount of CO2 produced. Further, methane molecules only last for about a decade in the atmosphere before being oxidised to CO2 and water, whereas CO2 molecules take about a century (at present) to be absorbed by the oceans or vegetation. As Guthrie says, methane concentrations are not changing very rapidly at present: 1.732ppmv in early 1990’s, 1.774ppmv in 2005, an increase of 2.4% in about 15 years. On the other hand, CO2 increased by 19ppmv in the ten years to 2005, an increase of 5.3% in ten years.
#37 woodentop, Edinburgh
The information you give is interesting, but it is largely unsurprising and does not contradict the "claim that the latter part of the 20th century experienced a warming that was unprecedented over the past thousand years."That statement, and the figures upon which it is based, refer to globally averaged temperature changes. Both the medieval warm period and the little ice age are recognised, but it is considered very likely that the present global warming is greater than that during the MWP. Temperature changes in high latitude situations like Baffin Island are higher than the global average: your source give +1.6C above the long term average. The only surprising bit in your source is the apparent lack of present day warming. You should also bear in mind that lake temperatures in Arctic regions are influenced by melt water from snow fields and glaciers, so they do not necessarily obviously relate to atmospheric temperatures.
while politicians posture & scientists squabble, every human being who still loves nature (& therefore observes it - which is basic science is it not?) every one who loves nature knows that something, if not everything, is badly wrong, with the weather, with the seasons, with the health & well-being of native eco-systems. Every farmer, every gardener can tell you. We don't need precise measurments to quantify these changes, we don't need alarmist media to inform us of what we know... We know that climate change is happening - it is not a political or scientific conspiracy.
As to the causes... down here among the grass-roots, local observation shows me a cause that I can see with my own eyes - common sense tells me that relentlessly stripping the land of it's native vegetation & soil (which keeps the land cool) and replacing it with the black-roof black-tarmac solar storage radiators of galloping "development", whilst simultaneously rapidly increasing technological devices & activities which generate heat in themselves (microwaves, infra-sound, actual heat), as well as generating insulating greenhouse gases, well it is just intuitively obvious why we are heating up...
It is also intuitively obvious what we must do to mitigate it. Stop "development" Start re-vegetating. Stop consuming mindlessly. No-one is talking about back to the Stone Age. Just stop MINDLESS consumption.Like, I, for one example, can easily live without Christmas Crackers. For 47 years I have consumed crackers. A mindless, unquestioned traditional habit. Giving up Christmas crackers isn't a huge trauma, so I shall never buy them again.I suspect that all of our lives are full of similar mindless, unquestioned, traditional consumer habits...
All of us, politicians, scientists, people... we must take serious stock of our lives & change them ourselves. Cut out the trivial, the useless, the vain, the pointless, the self-indulgen
Slioch #42:
'but it is considered very likely that the present global warming is greater than that during the MWP.'
Is it? By whom? On what data?
No-one can explain (adequately in my opinion) why these shifts in climate occur. To then attempt to predict 100 years into the future and base our current economic policies on such predictions seems foolish. I can see why politicians latch on to such bandwagons, since it hands them a great deal of control over us.
Oh - and incidentally, #42, your Mann hockeystick stuff DID attempt to hide the MWP and LIA - so your quote 'Both the medieval warm period and the little ice age are recognised' is slightly disingenuous.
#44 woodentop, Edinburgh
As a result of criticism of the Mann (hockey stick) paper, the American National Academy of Science National Research Council conducted an investigation. It was published in June 2006 and runs to 155pages. It says:“the key conclusions reached by those studies [the hockey stick] (i.e., that hemispheric-scale warmth in recent decades is likely unprecedented over at last the past millennium) have been substantiated by many other studies, and the confidence in those conclusions appears greater, not lesser, after nearly an additional decade of research”(pg. 109 of the report).[quoted from www.Realclimate.org 22 June 2006].
The NAS/NRC press release states:
“There is sufficient evidence from tree rings, boreholes, retreating glaciers, and other "proxies" of past surface temperatures to say with a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, according to a new report from the National Research Council. Less confidence can be placed in proxy-based reconstructions of surface temperatures for A.D. 900 to 1600, said the committee that wrote the report, although the available proxy evidence does indicate that many locations were warmer during the past 25 years than during any other 25-year period since 900. Very little confidence can be placed in statements about average global surface temperatures prior to A.D. 900 because the proxy data for that time frame are sparse, the committee added. ...”
The IPCC AR4 (Feb 2007) states, “Average Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the second half of the 20th century were very likely higherthan during any other 50-year period in the last 500 years and likely the highest in at least the past 1300 years.”
Looks like I should have said, “considered likely” rather than “very likely”, if referring to AR4.
#45 woodentop, Edinburgh said,
“your Mann hockeystick stuff DID attempt to hide the MWP and LIA”
No it didn’t. That is just the paranoid interpretation of those wishing to deny AWG and who were falsely claiming that the MWP was 3C warmer than the 20th century.If you look at the hockey stick graph in IPCC TAR 2001 Summary for Policymakers (figure 1b page 3) you will see that both the MWP and LIA are discernible in the graph. As discussed above, this data has been strengthened in recent years by further studies.
Slioch you say the IPCC didn't try to hide the Medieval warming.
A few weeks ago you defended the then current IPCC report as being wonderful & not disproved by the MWP because they had handily changed their base to only cover the period from 1600. The alternative being to admit getting it wrong in their previous report which went back 2000 years.
If you can defend their airbrushing 1600 years away so they can ignore the MWP it is disingenuous to say later that they don't try to ignore the MWP.
I don't get the religion thing: I think that dinosaurs existed, also that by 2100 the world will have a population around 9 billion (give or take), with increased pressure on water and biological resources. I didn't get to these ideas via religion/mysticism/peer pressure etc - they are the result of EVIDENCE - in one case from the distant past, in the other using current situation to extrapolate forward 100 years.
Re Al Gore's credibility: when he addressed the annual gathering of the American Geophysical Union, he got an audience of 5000 people and a standing ovation. While over 60% of US republican voters accept the case for AGW, the figure for Republican congressmen is only 25%. There has been a lot of talk about governments wanting control - I suggest the first place you look is the current US regime, which has ignored AGW for years in order to avoid restrictions on their financial backers, meanwhile starting a foreign war designed to gain CONTROL of oil resources.
I can just about see why woolly greens would invent a story to scare themselves but absolutely none why the Chinese government would. They are engaged in rapid economic growth to maintain the social stability which keeps them in power: the reason why they are tightening car emissions standards, shutting down small inefficient coal power stations etc is because the ecological fabric of their country is severely threatened by expanding deserts, limited water supplies and pollution.
With the world's population still expanding, what's the way forward? More dirty coal power stations, a SUV for every adult, patio heaters for every garden? Or a concerted international effort to get clean coal and cheap solar, houses which produce rather consume electricity, and people commuting by electric vehicles (even in the wide open USA, 70% of commutes are less than 20 miles)?
Will it cost me a lot to go green? Actually no. We had a one off cost to install a woodchip boiler, our elect
#49 Ed - good comment.
#48 Neil - your second and third paragraph bear no resemblance to reality. I, and no doubt many others (td and Guthrie particularly) are heartily sick of your misquoting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding what has been said in these posts.If you wish to bring up something that has been said previously, then take the trouble to look through the archive and quote it accurately and provide a reference and date.I'm not going to respond to your incoherent fantasies. Stop misrepresenting what people have said.
I note you include in #33 your posting on the Tamino (Open Mind) thread to which Guthrie usefully directed us, at:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/02/20/natural-variation
In case you missed it, Tamino starts his reply to you with the words, "your entire argument is so full of holes, it’s impossible to take you seriously," and ends with, "Yours is precisely the kind of not-even-poorly thought out argument that is nothing but a waste of time."
I have to say I entirely agree with him.
