I’ll only bother to answer the last comment, in that one fair sized volcanic eruption does more natural harm to the atmosphere than the last 100 years of unnatural motorised transport has.

So I present evidence from a respected scientific body and you challenge it with an unsubstantiated statement? And then you say:

to ignore any evidence that what you believe in might be wrong is lunacy.

Ok, lets look at this source you posted:

More here:
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml

It is an interesting claim but it is a press release to promote a book, and such things are usually senstionalised, to attract attention for the book. Hence it needs careful attention to separate the facts.

He claims: “more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares.”

But he does not say out of how many. Is that half, a fifth, less than 5% of scientists or scientific opinion? So a big number but meaningless without a comparison. Also, a scientist agreeing with the majority of a body of research but refuting one element, does not bring the whole edifice down. In an area of research as wide as climate science there will be claims made which are refuted, and others that are proven correct. What is important is the overall view.

So, interesting but overblown and unsubstantiated. Like many statements from politicians – which I why I didn’t mention Al Gore.

BTW I would counter Martin Durkin’s Great Global Warming Swindle with Iain Stewart’s Earth: The Climate Wars.

I didn’t mention Al Gore – but yet you feel it necessary to attack his lifestyle, not the evidence for his campaigns.

Moving on, we’ll leave the IPCC behind for now and go back to some key arguments being put forward:

You say that CO2 is not responsible for Global Warming
See The Royal Society’s guide to Climate Change

The Royal Society, which has been at the forefront of science for three and a half centuries, feels the science of climate change has reached a point where they are attacking misleading statements – not merely hosting a debate. That itself is a powerful argument.
See also:
Global Warming is caused by the sun
and
Climate changed is not caused by humans which also points out that volcanoes are responsible for less than one percent of the emmisions due to human activity.

And please lets move away from acusations of brainwashing. I’ve always considered science behind such debates and I fight propaganda in all forms.

IPCC from their website:

The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).

You seem very quick to dismiss a body that won the Nobel Prize. I wonder why?

Clathrates – I believe one criticism of the IPCC was that they had not factored in enough of the research on Methane release from the Tundra thus their Fourth Assessment may be too conservative.

However, it is very difficult to know what science is against our position if you don’t quote it. I don’t believe blindly, I study and discuss, that’s why I’m on a discussion forum.

Probably can’t see out. I couldn’t when I was dressed as Peter Rabbit.

D’you think there is a small tunnel that just happens to lead right into the central power unit?

Joglo, the brainwashing of the proletariat seems to have worked. On this forum, it’s you and me plus maybe one other that have resisted UTTER TRASH written by idiots wasting their education.

Ignore me, ignore Government if you can’t judge when they’re spinning – but read what the independent scientists say, that’s why I posted links to credible reports for the comments I’ve made. Read all the scientists and judge on the consensus view.

I say again, NOBODY is denying that global warming is real.
But to blame it on man is nothing more than foolhardy.
And to think man can change it or solve this problem is equally foolhardy.

OK, you agree with Climate Change. But how do you explain that for 800,000 years (the ice core record) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere didn’t go above about 300ppm. But in the last 50 years it has and now is 375ppm.

The IPCC states: “most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”

Ah, so we all agree and this thread, like many before it, would have benefitted from an Irony emoticon?

Can we have one?

Species have come and gone in the billions of years that Earth has been spinning round its Sun,

But the rate of extinctions in the last 100 years is the highest known – unless you go back into geological time periods in which case scientists are genuinely comparing what is happening now with the big extinctions from the fossil records. (according to the World Conservation Union) Which could make this the end of an era – the Cenozoic. Now that is scary.

We’re one of the weakest animals this planet has ever had the displeasure of being host to!

Yes, up against a wolf I wouldn’t stand a chance. But yet mankind has eliminated the wolf from the UK. An individual is right to be scared of a polar bear, yet we are killing them all through thinning arctic ice. How many other mammal species exist in the tropics and the high arctic? How many adapt to life in swamps, coral atols and deserts at the same time? How many have had the impact on the planet that we have? Pyramids, roads, cities, Pick’nMix at Woolies? What other species has the energy to collect its poo, pump it hundreds of miles to dump it in the sea and still has time to go swimming in that sea? (with thanks to D Adams for that observation)

When it’s proven that the world is actually cooling, what then, a global cooling tax?:rolleyes:

Ah, are you referring to that research that claimed the Sun was cooling that was IIRC on a Horizon programme? The programme showed that the effect was actually caused by smoke particles in the atmosphere sheilding us from the sun. So, now we have more smoke free fuels, the effect is lessening and we can get the full blast of global warming.

Has anyone bothered to check the claims of sea levels rising at an alarming rate?

Yes – have a chat with the government of Tuvalu which is considering evacuating the whole 11,000+ population within 50 years.

Or look up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predictions for up to 60cm rise, on top of recent sea level rises. Which makes for an unprecedented situation in the last 2,000 years.

Or the UNs findings on Climate change?

Feel free to quote sources for your points.

I believe in the geologists / paleolclimatologists first.
As for coal / oil running out, yes……that’s the only decent reason to be looking at alternative energy. We have about 150 years worth yet.

I’ve got a degree in Petroleum Geology so can I comment? The current fear is that we are near “Peak Oil” which means that for the past 100+ years use of oil has increased, as has production. But we are not making major finds any more and production is going to decline. At the same time demand (China and India) is now outstripping supply – so prices have gone up. (The recession has brought some relief to the price crisis for now but not for ever)
So yes, we may still be extracting oil in 100 years or even 150 years, but at nothing like current levels. If demand continues to increase, we need alternatives. If the planet continues to warm up, we need alternatives.

Cheers

Failed to move with the times. Their last bright idea was PicknMix.

Such a shame but my thoughts are with the 30,000 staff – they don’t deserve to face Christmas with this uncertainty.