A growing groundswell of opinion?

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Im not convinced that economies will grind to a halt tbh. When the oil price becomes too high companies will invest in new technologies, this will form a new 'eco industry' that will replace jobs lost as a result of no one buying oil. It started to happen in the 1980's when oil supplies slowed up, but the govt got involved, the price dropped, companies figured it was cheaper to buy the oil again than invest in new technologies. So they didn't. Simple economics demands that governements do what they do best. Nothing. Let business and the economies take their course, take no prisoners. If things get tough, they get tough. But they'll get better.

You can depict us in the 21st C with those back in history, but we have the knowledge now to cope, to adapt, to live on. Government intervention doesn't foster ideas, its restricts them.

On the original topic re disbelief. Is it any wonder? In the 70's we were all doomed to a global cool down (temp wise) then we were all going to get mad cow disease, then we were all going to get sars, now maybe bird flu? If none of those get us, then 30C and fine wine growing in Scotland might? Shucks.

[Devonian]

Im not convinced that economies will grind to a halt tbh. When the oil price becomes too high companies will invest in new technologies, this will form a new 'eco industry' that will replace jobs lost as a result of no one buying oil. It started to happen in the 1980's when oil supplies slowed up, but the govt got involved, the price dropped, companies figured it was cheaper to buy the oil again than invest in new technologies. So they didn't. Simple economics demands that governements do what they do best. Nothing. Let business and the economies take their course, take no prisoners. If things get tough, they get tough. But they'll get better.

You can depict us in the 21st C with those back in history, but we have the knowledge now to cope, to adapt, to live on. Government intervention doesn't foster ideas, its restricts them.

On the original topic re disbelief. Is it any wonder? In the 70's we were all doomed to a global cool down (temp wise) then we were all going to get mad cow disease, then we were all going to get sars, now maybe bird flu? If none of those get us, then 30C and fine wine growing in Scotland might? Shucks.

If you can find me any evidence we were 'all' going to get MCD, or 'all' going to get SARS then please post it. My recollection was that words like 'risk' and 'percent [of population]' were used. As to the 70's global cool down scare, well I was around then and I can say it simply wasn't anything like the science news warming now is - nothing like it.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

My point was that government scientists grap the bone and run with it until something else comes along. The media, with nothing else to do tends to follow suit. Thankfully, most people are beginning to grasp that you can't believe everything someone else tells you, and that its best to find out things for yourself. Ergo, most people I talk to seem to be slightly wary re global warming and what exactly it is going to do... and lets be honest - no one does.

If they can't get the weather right for the next few hours, one thinks they might struggle for the next few hundred years! Thats just my opinion. I'll recycle, i'll switch off lights, but im still going to drive to work, im still going to go on holiday in warm places (which according to some people I won't have to soon) and im still going to believe that this is just one of those things. Lets face it, the earth has been here for billions of years, pumping noxious gasses into the atmosphere at a huge rate, far worse than we could even contemplate, yet it had ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, hot periods, some might say the world knows what its up to. It has afterall coped before.

If however it doesn't, there are some great quick fixes being banded around, someone just needs to bite the goddamn bullet instead of 'well, we could do this, or we might do that'

So in essence... oil problem - leave to industry, cooling leave to nature or, if a helping hand is needed, human intervention. I believe a few hundred million tonnes of sulphur at about 40km a.s.l would do the trick. Prof Crutzen certainly thinks so.

[Devonian]

My point was that government scientists grap the bone and run with it until something else comes along. The media, with nothing else to do tends to follow suit. Thankfully, most people are beginning to grasp that you can't believe everything someone else tells you, and that its best to find out things for yourself. Ergo, most people I talk to seem to be slightly wary re global warming and what exactly it is going to do... and lets be honest - no one does.

If they can't get the weather right for the next few hours, one thinks they might struggle for the next few hundred years! Thats just my opinion. I'll recycle, i'll switch off lights, but im still going to drive to work, im still going to go on holiday in warm places (which according to some people I won't have to soon) and im still going to believe that this is just one of those things. Lets face it, the earth has been here for billions of years, pumping noxious gasses into the atmosphere at a huge rate, far worse than we could even contemplate, yet it had ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, hot periods, some might say the world knows what its up to. It has afterall coped before.

If however it doesn't, there are some great quick fixes being banded around, someone just needs to bite the goddamn bullet instead of 'well, we could do this, or we might do that'

So in essence... oil problem - leave to industry, cooling leave to nature or, if a helping hand is needed, human intervention. I believe a few hundred million tonnes of sulphur at about 40km a.s.l would do the trick. Prof Crutzen certainly thinks so.

Don't confuse weather and climate. Remember future predictions are for the climate not the weather...

[laserguy]

. Lets face it, the earth has been here for billions of years, pumping noxious gasses into the atmosphere at a huge rate, far worse than we could even contemplate, yet it had ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods, hot periods, some might say the world knows what its up to. It has afterall coped before.

If however it doesn't, there are some great quick fixes being banded around, someone just needs to bite the goddamn bullet instead of 'well, we could do this, or we might do that'

Yeah,now there's 10,000 of the blighters (ten thousand!!!) having a massive knees-up in Bali,masquerading as saviours of the planet. I'd like to laugh,but can't. Probably used up half the world's kerosene supplies just to get 'em all there. Meanwhile folks,turn off those standby buttons.

[Devonian]

Yeah,now there's 10,000 of the blighters (ten thousand!!!) having a massive knees-up in Bali,masquerading as saviours of the planet. I'd like to laugh,but can't. Probably used up half the world's kerosene supplies just to get 'em all there. Meanwhile folks,turn off those standby buttons.

If cynicism could change science/evidence/data the problem would have gone away decades ago

[Gray-Wolf]

SAR's was only 'halted' from being a pandemic because folk were already being vigilant for H5N1 which had first been recognised in 1997 (and not 2003 as is often reported) so the spectre of H5N1 has already saved us from one pandemic thus far.

Insofar as feeding people to people (via cows) we still have no idea as to how many folk will suffer full blown CJD as it can lie inactive within a person for decades until it 'triggers' and the person goes full blown CJD. We still d not have enough cases to know for sure how CJD manifests in folk (whether all turn into vegetables or whether minor versions, similar to the onset of dementia, exist) The largest study was from a community of 'cannibals' on a south sea island who ritually eat their kinfolk (mashed brains?) as a mark of respect. The islanders infected this way all suffered full blown CJD.

The 70's 'ice age' rumblings were courtesy of the first planet wide climatological survey (with the aid of the then 'new' satellite remote sensing) and was the first 'stab' at explaining the changes which were being noted. Let us not forget it was the fossil fuel backed lobby of scientists who pushed the notion and so we must suspect their 'smokescreen' as more filibustering to extend the period of 'uncertainty' as to what was happening to the planet (even now in 2007 we are only allowed to be 90%+ sure that we are the new driver behind climate shift thanks to the oil guzzling' nations constant whining).

By the time we have summer seasons with constant 30c summers in Scotland we will have lost most of W.A.I.S., G.I.S, and a fair chunk of E.A.I S. so only the rocky upland slopes of NW Scotland will be available for cultivation, by which time the mozzies will have joined forces with the Midges and make it as pleasant as most of W. Canada/Alaska in the summer........for those folk left (whose priorities may not then include a nice glass of Chardonnay on an evening).

[Admiral_Bobski]

SAR's was only 'halted' from being a pandemic because folk were already being vigilant for H5N1 which had first been recognised in 1997 (and not 2003 as is often reported) so the spectre of H5N1 has already saved us from one pandemic thus far.

I'm not sure that that's strictly true, GW. SARS was spotted by the WHO via internet monitoring of reported influenza outbreaks, and I have seen no evidence that this form of monitoring was sparked by anything other than the convenience of the internet. It is also hard to determine whether or not there would have been a pandemic even if the WHO had not widely reported it, since the virus's appearance in any technologically advanced country would precipitate a local response from the medical community. (Once again going back to Jethro's point about advances in medicine being the defining factor in population and mortality rates.)

Insofar as feeding people to people (via cows) we still have no idea as to how many folk will suffer full blown CJD as it can lie inactive within a person for decades until it 'triggers' and the person goes full blown CJD. We still d not have enough cases to know for sure how CJD manifests in folk (whether all turn into vegetables or whether minor versions, similar to the onset of dementia, exist) The largest study was from a community of 'cannibals' on a south sea island who ritually eat their kinfolk (mashed brains?) as a mark of respect. The islanders infected this way all suffered full blown CJD.

What do you mean by "feeding people to people (via cows)"? There is no human matter in cow feed, and so there is no human consumption of humans - there is bovine matter in cow feed, and it is this "cows eating cows" that causes the BSE. It has been suggested that cows infected with BSE can give humans CJD, but there is no conclusive proof that this is actually the case (to the best of my knowledge). Furthermore, the prions that cause the disease can be easily sterilised by cooking, so you should be safe even if you do happen to eat infected meat (unless you like raw meat - rare steaks may be an issue, but even then they have to be cooked a bit). The reason the cannibals got CJD is because not only were they eating each others' brains, they didn't even have the decency to cook the brains first.

The 70's 'ice age' rumblings were courtesy of the first planet wide climatological survey (with the aid of the then 'new' satellite remote sensing) and was the first 'stab' at explaining the changes which were being noted. Let us not forget it was the fossil fuel backed lobby of scientists who pushed the notion and so we must suspect their 'smokescreen' as more filibustering to extend the period of 'uncertainty' as to what was happening to the planet (even now in 2007 we are only allowed to be 90%+ sure that we are the new driver behind climate shift thanks to the oil guzzling' nations constant whining).

I find the first half of this paragraph needlessly conspiratorial - since there wasn't a significant issue with burning fossil fuels in the 70s (certainly nothing like there is today), why would the oil companies waste their time producing "smokescreens" to cover up something that wasn't particularly considered an issue? One of the wonderful things about AGW is it allows us to retroactively accuse people who are presently unpopular with the most heinous crimes and plots imaginable. What a load of nonsense! And what do you mean "we are only allowed to be 90%+ sure"? What an interestingly twisted perception.

By the time we have summer seasons with constant 30c summers in Scotland we will have lost most of W.A.I.S., G.I.S, and a fair chunk of E.A.I S. so only the rocky upland slopes of NW Scotland will be available for cultivation, by which time the mozzies will have joined forces with the Midges and make it as pleasant as most of W. Canada/Alaska in the summer........for those folk left (whose priorities may not then include a nice glass of Chardonnay on an evening).

Surely that should read "If we have summer seasons..."? I shan't go back over the mosquitoes debate again at the moment.

CB

[VillagePlank]

Don't confuse weather and climate. Remember future predictions are for the climate not the weather...

(i) The valued ranges of predictions are entirely the same as the ensemble forecasts produced for GFS for the next six hours. In climate models they mess around with unsure parameters, in weather prediction they mess around with missing data - not only is this similar, the mathematics is virtually identical.

(ii) The processes modelled by both climate models and weather models is the same. It's identical. The mathematics of coupling the atmopshere and the ocean are the same. Nothing is different. The notion of cloud cover, and of greenhouse gases, and of tides, and of solar energy, and of ice cover (complete the list as you see fit) is the same.

(iii) Finally, the mose important point: are you seriously claiming that we can predict future climate, but not future weather? What about unusual events? What about those little things that happen that produce massive effects downstream? Are you suggesting that we can do it with the climate, but not with the weather?

Edited December 3, 2007 by Paul

[Devonian]

Worth a read

[Gray-Wolf]

What do you mean by "feeding people to people (via cows)"? There is no human matter in cow feed, and so there is no human consumption of humans - there is bovine matter in cow feed, and it is this "cows eating cows" that causes the BSE. It has been suggested that cows infected with BSE can give humans CJD, but there is no conclusive proof that this is actually the case (to the best of my knowledge). Furthermore, the prions that cause the disease can be easily sterilised by cooking, so you should be safe even if you do happen to eat infected meat (unless you like raw meat - rare steaks may be an issue, but even then they have to be cooked a bit). The reason the cannibals got CJD is because not only were they eating each others' brains, they didn't even have the decency to cook the brains first.

Surely that should read "If we have summer seasons..."? I shan't go back over the mosquitoes debate again at the moment.

CB

My we're a grumpy head today Bobski!

From my information it was widely accepted that the contaminated 'foodstuffs' that we fed to our cattle had some 'protien' collected from the Ganges by folk who wade the banks pulling out bones for processing. We all know what floats down the ganges and would produce 'bones' now don't we? Seeing as the only other occuring cases of a community with high levels of CJD were those accustomed to eating their kinfolk (and transfereing the disease) then it would appear that the scientists who traced back both the 'ingrediants' of the feeds concerned and the method of aquiring CJD were spot on. It's nothing new is it? Feeding mashed cows brains to sheep didn't do them any favours did it? I'll have a poke around and see if I can find some 'evidence' you will accept!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep...ersiesinscience

There's a start for you

Edited December 3, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[Paul]

OK, several posts are now going to be deleted - I'd also suggest those involved do themselves a favour and read this thread before you get yourselves either suspended or stopped from posting in this part of the forum..

http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=42070

[Devonian]

My we're a grumpy head today Bobski!

From my information it was widely accepted that the contaminated 'foodstuffs' that we fed to our cattle had some 'protien' collected from the Ganges by folk who wade the banks pulling out bones for processing. We all know what floats down the ganges and would produce 'bones' now don't we? Seeing as the only other occuring cases of a community with high levels of CJD were those accustomed to eating their kinfolk (and transfereing the disease) then it would appear that the scientists who traced back both the 'ingrediants' of the feeds concerned and the method of aquiring CJD were spot on. It's nothing new is it? Feeding mashed cows brains to sheep didn't do them any favours did it? I'll have a poke around and see if I can find some 'evidence' you will accept!

Actually, now you mention it I remember this Ganges link, though not the details. Was it proven? I seem to remember the evidence was good.

Whatever, cows were being 'fed' to cows for a time - or the rendered remains as MBM (which I think was what came from India?). I actually think we should feed MBM to omnivorous like pigs rather than the present option of the amazing expense of burning such waste (and fallen stock) to a cinder. Just think how much oven time it would take to reduce a joint to ashes and multiply by 1-500 each time. It's energy madness.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Devonian

[Admiral_Bobski]

My we're a grumpy head today Bobski!

From my information it was widely accepted that the contaminated 'foodstuffs' that we fed to our cattle had some 'protien' collected from the Ganges by folk who wade the banks pulling out bones for processing. We all know what floats down the ganges and would produce 'bones' now don't we? Seeing as the only other occuring cases of a community with high levels of CJD were those accustomed to eating their kinfolk (and transfereing the disease) then it would appear that the scientists who traced back both the 'ingrediants' of the feeds concerned and the method of aquiring CJD were spot on. It's nothing new is it? Feeding mashed cows brains to sheep didn't do them any favours did it? I'll have a poke around and see if I can find some 'evidence' you will accept!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/sep...ersiesinscience

There's a start for you

Apologies if my earlier post seemed grumpy - I was just responding to your comments in a perhaps excessively direct way. With the best will in the world, I do sometimes find it hard to understand where you are coming from, and you often come across as needlessly pessimistic.

I'm not sure about this Ganges thing - I was under the impression that it was wild speculation that had been discredited, and indeed the article you linked to even emphasises that this theory is entirely speculative and not supported by many (if any) people.

Furthermore, the most significant risk of acquiring CJD (or similar) is by consumption of brain matter, which is why cannibals get it so easily. The risk dimishes significantly when consuming other parts of the body, so bones aren't generally considered much of a problem (so my chemical biologist friend tells me). And this still doesn't take into consideration the fact that properly cooked meat should solve the problem anyway.

As with so many other things, the Mad Cow Disease scare was blown up completely out of all proportion by the media. The thing that made me laugh the most (in a sort of bitterly ironic kind of way) is that the French refused to take our meat after it was declared safe, but they were up in arms when we refused to import their meat when they had a BSE scare. Ah, it's a larf, innit?!

CB

[Gray-Wolf]

Apologies if my earlier post seemed grumpy - I was just responding to your comments in a perhaps excessively direct way. With the best will in the world, I do sometimes find it hard to understand where you are coming from, and you often come across as needlessly pessimistic.

I'm not sure about this Ganges thing - I was under the impression that it was wild speculation that had been discredited, and indeed the article you linked to even emphasises that this theory is entirely speculative and not supported by many (if any) people.

Furthermore, the most significant risk of acquiring CJD (or similar) is by consumption of brain matter, which is why cannibals get it so easily. The risk diminishes significantly when consuming other parts of the body, so bones aren't generally considered much of a problem (so my chemical biologist friend tells me). And this still doesn't take into consideration the fact that properly cooked meat should solve the problem anyway.

As with so many other things, the Mad Cow Disease scare was blown up completely out of all proportion by the media. The thing that made me laugh the most (in a sort of bitterly ironic kind of way) is that the French refused to take our meat after it was declared safe, but they were up in arms when we refused to import their meat when they had a BSE scare. Ah, it's a larf, innit?!

CB

No need to appologise Bob, I'm probably 'displacing' my own frame of mind onto you anyway!!! The unpalatable possibility of us inadvertently feeding human brain to cattle (and onto ourselves) though not 'proven' is hard to discount. The 'funeral pyres' from a Hindu celebration are not really up to the job of consuming a body and so many are 'incomplete' leaving many body parts on the banks along with the 'sacred' cow bits (of course the 'untouchables' are the poor sods with this loverly job!!!).

I probably saw the same prog as Dev. and they went to a 'drift of bones' on one small islet and there was a real hodgepodge of human and bovine body bits.

For a Hindu minister to say that India would be full of CJD if this was it's route is tosh! How much cow does your average Hindu scoff???

Edited December 3, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[laserguy]

If cynicism could change science/evidence/data the problem would have gone away decades ago

More sincere than cynical! It's impossible to have a structured,well ordered debate with twenty people,never mind ten thousand. So they've been at it for decades and the 'problem' just gets worse? It will do,it's out of our hands. They'll achieve nothing at all,except come up with even more evocative and graphic descriptions of how we're all doomed if 'we' don't change our ways. From 'what',and to 'what'?

Hillary Benn,MP,has stated that climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity. No it isn't,he needs to open his eyes and take a little look around. A matter of such grave importance should warrant full television coverage,but we'll still have 'X-Factor' and the like given precedence. Perhaps rightly so,since a televised debate would reveal a bunch of hacks and politicos stood around in groups of four,quaffing champagne and munching on canapes (paid for by whom?),telling each other how wonderful they are and wringing hands about those infernal CO2 emissions. I've always maintained that the whole global warming 'thing' is all to do with energy resources,finance and politics,and nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. I can barely believe there are still folk around who haven't yet sussed that blindingly obvious truth. Wonder how that extension to Heathrow is coming along?

[Stratos Ferric]

More sincere than cynical! It's impossible to have a structured,well ordered debate with twenty people,never mind ten thousand. So they've been at it for decades and the 'problem' just gets worse? It will do,it's out of our hands. They'll achieve nothing at all,except come up with even more evocative and graphic descriptions of how we're all doomed if 'we' don't change our ways. From 'what',and to 'what'?

Hillary Benn,MP,has stated that climate change is the biggest threat facing humanity. No it isn't,he needs to open his eyes and take a little look around. A matter of such grave importance should warrant full television coverage,but we'll still have 'X-Factor' and the like given precedence. Perhaps rightly so,since a televised debate would reveal a bunch of hacks and politicos stood around in groups of four,quaffing champagne and munching on canapes (paid for by whom?),telling each other how wonderful they are and wringing hands about those infernal CO2 emissions. I've always maintained that the whole global warming 'thing' is all to do with energy resources,finance and politics,and nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. I can barely believe there are still folk around who haven't yet sussed that blindingly obvious truth. Wonder how that extension to Heathrow is coming along?

You may, of course, be wrong. At the very least, unless you are going to argue that we aren't warming, then suggesting that "it's ALL to do..." is stretching plausibility.

[HighPressure]

Laserguy wrote:

I've always maintained that the whole global warming 'thing' is all to do with energy resources,finance and politics,and nothing whatsoever to do with climate change

You may, of course, be wrong. At the very least, unless you are going to argue that we aren't warming, then suggesting that "it's ALL to do..." is stretching plausibility.

I try to stay objective when reading all posts and will try to be so here:

I think there is pretty clear evidence from a range of data which shows that the earth is in a warming phase, therefore at this time GW is in operation. However the same data sources show us that warming phases in the earths climate are quite normal and have occurred many times in the past to varying degrees. The processes involved with GW are not fully understood but the majority of experts believe human emissions of GHGs contribute to warming, however other than the word significant no figure has been agreed as to what this contribution is. At this stage of our understanding GW or AGW can be seen as all things to all men, and this where I and Laserguy will agree it has become a very convenient weapon in the control of the masses by governments. Without GW current world growth is not sustainable with the resources available it simply has to slow, SF or GW this does not mean you are wrong but given the history of politics and the need to slow world growth, many including myself could be forgiven for believing this argument is being hijacked.

Because this debate is in such a position where it can be used for political aims it is now not possible to have meaningful scientific investigation into the subject, claim will simply be met with counter claim. There are really only 3 answers to present GW:

1) Its a relatively slow warming process over many years significantly impacted upon by man.

2) Its the above by is mainly natural

3) Its far worse then projected GW's doomsday predictions are only a few years away.

Now I may not be very bright but I do know if I had undisputable proof of the answer, it would have to be No1 as 2 & 3 would probably see me go missing in the night, or suddenly doing a Dr Kelly?

BTW No3 would not be entrusted to governments who would simply do as they are told by the powers above them.

Coming back to the ground swell of opinion topic, the masses may not understand the science but they don't need to know, because science will play a very little role in determining the answer as No1?

One final point the UK government handed over control of interest rates to the BOE to avoid it being used as a political tool, why don't they do that with GW issues :-)

[Bobby]

Nobody has undisputable proof of anything, apart from that 2+2=4 and that the world is round. The theory of gravity, the laws of motion, evolution, relativity are not indisputable fact. There is barely anything in science that is such. But AGW, like these theories, has masses of evidence supporting it and also has the overwhelming agreement of the world's relevant experts in the field. I think it's arrogant to assume that all these people are wrong - they are all far more knowledgeable and experienced in this field than probably anyone in this forum - and they almost all agree that AGW is real.

Yes, I do believe that too big a fuss is being made also. I feel nauseaus when the next advert comes on with a oil company/car company/bank/supermarket starts going on and on about their green credentials. Global warming and environmentalism in general has been hijacked by politicans wanting to further their career and business trying to make an easy buck and this has made people understandibly sceptical of their motives and thus the theory in general. But just look at the science.

Would there be such a controversy about AGW if the blame wasn't on us? No I think is the answer. Most of the people on the street who are sceptical about AGW... I'd guess their scepticism is almost nothing to do with science - after all, average joe on the street probably doesn't even know what CO2 is - yet the dismiss the theory of thousands of the words best minds with decades of research. They just don't like being blamed for something they don't understand and don't trust all the people trying to take advantage of them with it. Which is understandable. Just concentrate on the science!

Rant over, yay.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Magpie

[Dartmoor_Matt]

The fact is that this HAD to happen in order to sustain the population growth, had we all remained in caves, swinging wooden clubs and eating raw meat the human race would of been a pretty non exisitant thing. GW (taking the side for the moment that humans may have sped things up) is a by product of us existing. To blame 'us' is pretty narrow minded imo.

Now, we, as the population need to adapt how we do things to help this continue. This has to be done through technology.

To this end there was quite an interesting Lecture last night on BBC1 regarding creating artificial life with the sole purpose of generating energy, taking the carbon from carbon dioxide. Admittedly, its only an idea, but an idea from the guy who mapped his own genome, Dr J Craig Venter.

Its all very well science trying to prove something, but maybe it should employ resources to fixing the problem! Or at least suggesting more than 'switching our lights of' - Mr X isn't going to want to switch his lights off, or turn his heating down when he turns the News on to see countries, both developed and developing, pumping tonnes of GHGs into the atmosphere.

Part of the problem is "what can I do about it?"

People live in such bubbled worlds that maybe they just don't see the bigger picture.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Dartmoor_Matt

[jethro]

I have looked at the science, lots and lots and lots of it. A great deal of it says "yes we've warmed", an awful lot of it says "we could be witnessing, or this may be a manifestation of a climate change signal". Very, very little of it says "hey look what we have done to the climate, here is unequivicable proof". The best that science has come up with so far is the climate has/is changing (always is anyway, it isn't a static state), theoretically we could be influencing this by adding Co2. In reality, the bill thus far for all the scientific research, must run into billions and yet still we have a theory which remains unproven outside the realms of a lab.

We're supposed to have confidence in their findings, we're supposed to believe what our future will hold, we're supposed to believe they have a fair idea of how each part of the world (broadly speaking) will be affected. So what happened to this summer then? Aren't they supposed to be getting ever hotter and dryer? The world is warmer, more heat=greater evaporation, the tropics are supposed to be getting wetter then, so how come there's a drought? The Southern Hemisphere is thought to not be as affected as the NH, it will get warmer but not so much or as quickly, so how come they've just experienced their coldest winter by far, for decades? The Gulf Stream is supposed to be affected by large influxes of fresh water, if the Arctic melts it's supposed to dilute it to the point of perhaps slowing it down, possibly even stopping it. So how come when this year, more ice melted than ever before, we didn't have reports of a slowdown? I'd have thought if such a great danger was possible, you'd have had half the oceanographers in the world testing and measuring. On the subject of the Arctic, the world gets warmer, it's supposed to melt, this year it did it's best to comply so how come all the historical evidence of it doing this periodically, cylically is trounced by the latest data? "Arctic melts the most since records began" - anyone see the small print which says these records began in 1979?

This whole thing, has got more spin than a Sun reporter on acid.

Sorry peeps, rant over.

[Bobby]

So what happened to this summer then? Aren't they supposed to be getting ever hotter and dryer?

I thought you knew better than that. 3 months of weather on one small island in one small part of the world is hardly evidence against global warming. It's ridiculous, really. They are suppose to get hotter and drier on average - who exactly has said that every single summer will be a little bit warmer and drier than the last? Nobody. By the way, the last 2 years were the warmest 2 year period since records began over 300 years ago.

Your post is full of other strawman attacks. Nobody has ever said there will not be droughts - indeed climate change is expected to increase droughts and severity of droughts as climate patterns change as more volatility takes hold due to increase energy in the atmosphere. Some places will become much wettter with severe downpours and floods while others may see long periods of harsh drought. The southern hemisphere has experienced it's coldest winter for decades? Link please. Even if true, it's just one local trend in one year. Global climate is over decades of weather over the whole Earth! The gulf stream isn't "supposed" to shut down at all. It is one theory by a certain group of scientists - and they say it's only a possibility, and a pretty unlikely one at that.

If you are going to refute arguments on global warming, at least refute ones that actually exist - because otherwise it's strawman stuff.

[jethro]

I thought you knew better than that. 3 months of weather on one small island in one small part of the world is hardly evidence against global warming. It's ridiculous, really. They are suppose to get hotter and drier on average - who exactly has said that every single summer will be a little bit warmer and drier than the last? Nobody. By the way, the last 2 years were the warmest 2 year period since records began over 300 years ago.

Your post is full of other strawman attacks. Nobody has ever said there will not be droughts - indeed climate change is expected to increase droughts and severity of droughts as climate patterns change as more volatility takes hold due to increase energy in the atmosphere. Some places will become much wettter with severe downpours and floods while others may see long periods of harsh drought. The southern hemisphere has experienced it's coldest winter for decades? Link please. Even if true, it's just one local trend in one year. Global climate is over decades of weather over the whole Earth! The gulf stream isn't "supposed" to shut down at all. It is one theory by a certain group of scientists - and they say it's only a possibility, and a pretty unlikely one at that.

If you are going to refute arguments on global warming, at least refute ones that actually exist - because otherwise it's strawman stuff.

My post was a deliberate one. The average joe in the street will give you the same. The average man in the street is in the majority.

There are two sides to a coin, each and every weather variation is linked in the media to AGW, so when we have a dry, sunny April and the nations' press say we're in for a scorcher, the hottest summer we've ever had, sign of things to come; what are people supposed to think?

"Global climate is over decades of weather over the whole Earth!" Indeed, so the last twenty odd years tells us what?

[Bobby]

My post was a deliberate one. The average joe in the street will give you the same. The average man in the street is in the majority.

There are two sides to a coin, each and every weather variation is linked in the media to AGW, so when we have a dry, sunny April and the nations' press say we're in for a scorcher, the hottest summer we've ever had, sign of things to come; what are people supposed to think?

"Global climate is over decades of weather over the whole Earth!" Indeed, so the last twenty odd years tells us what?

Well, that's the media's fault, not the science. They media are full of it and one shouldn't believe a word they say which why I always say go straight to the science and ignore all the middlemen.

The last 20 odd years show a trend of warming and a changing climate.

[Dartmoor_Matt]

In a world that has been here for billions of years, you'll excuse me for thinking the last 20 years are fairly insignificant.

When someone can prove this hasn't always happened I'll take more notice. Til then I'll take everything under advisement.