In a letter here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm) - it's not long and well worth reading

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus.

And to illuminate this an amusing quote from 1976:

"It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

Bear this in mind next time you hear a politician banging on that we need to give up freedoms and yet more money to "save the planet"...

a woman at work put across an arguement i find hard to dismiss tbh

she says the earths always gone through climate change, look at the last iceage, and where once was deserts is ice and where once was ice is deserts.......she says it goes through cycles.....by nature and all this greenhouse gas stuff is just to screw more money out of us

I like the adverts to the right of the letter: offering the chance to balance my CO2 emissions and get into 'green energy'.:hihi:

So apart from proving that scientists have enough sense to change their views based on newly-uncovered evidence, what is the point of posting this?

In a letter here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm) - it's not long and well worth reading

Interesting article. Shows the pressure - and perhaps people's need/desire - to conform to prevailing wisdom:

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

Suprise, surprise Timothy Ball the man who wrote the letter is in the pay of the oil industry (http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html) and hasn't published a peer reviewed article in over a decade.

If you want to learn the truth about climate change your better off going to people who aren't in the pay (http://www.bbc.co.uk/climate/) of the industry who's profits depend on action not being taken to reduce CO2 emissions.

she says the earths always gone through climate change, look at the last iceage, and where once was deserts is ice and where once was ice is deserts.......she says it goes through cycles.....by nature and all this greenhouse gas stuff is just to screw more money out of usTo be honest, this argument is naive at best. It's much the same as the arguments along the lines of 'well there's lots of different reasons for climate change, look at the fluctuations in the amount of energy reaching us from the Sun...'.

The fact is, all of this is taken into account in climate studies, and factors such as fluctuations in the energy reaching us from the Sun, volcanic activity, the planetary albedo, etc, do not account for the rise in global temperatures that we have seen recently.

a woman at work put across an arguement i find hard to dismiss tbh

she says the earths always gone through climate change, look at the last iceage, and where once was deserts is ice and where once was ice is deserts.......she says it goes through cycles.....by nature and all this greenhouse gas stuff is just to screw more money out of us
Does she really think that the scientists who spend their lives studying the climate aren't aware of such cycles and haven't already factored them into their models?

Who does she think actually discovered the cycles and that there had in fact been Ice Ages in the first place if not scientists of the kind who's intelligence she is insulting?

The vast majority of climatologists, who now agree on the causes of global warming, are not involved in a conspiracy. It is the minority who are in the pay of the oil industry (Exxon alone has a $190 million dollar budget to cast doubt on the scientific concensus) who are the conspirators.

I've had this discussion several times on Sf, and those who contend that they know more about the problem than the people who have spent years studying it, invariably post hearsay arguments and shrink away when asked to produce some real evidence from a scientific source not in the pay of the oil industry.

Does anyone really think that the majority of climate scientists would not take into consideration the long term natural climate cycles? Or that they are all involed in some conspiracy which is going to make their own lives harder?

It's sad that so many people would rather believe anything than face up to uncomfortable facts.

Lets see here... The computers they used in the 1970s for climate climate change modeling had less computing power than my PDA phone. If we are simply going by the stick your head out the window process, we MUST be going through another ice age as it is currently -34C in Chicago and it has been that way for two whole days!

Lowell Ponte the talk radio host and former Readers Digest journalist?

I still think that whether we have a global cooling or warming, the good thing about all the publicity on Climate change is that it highlights ALL the damage that humans do to the planet. If it makes us all aware that we need to tread more carefully on this earth then I'm all for it.

This is how these crafty 'pc' types work; and they're the same on here: "All shall be well", they'll tell you," carry on as you were."
And what will happen when the ice cap melts? All those billions of Eskimos will be coming here cos they know we're a soft touch.:rant:
They'll get priority for the councils igloos and all the giant icecubes!:rant: ..and if you try to hang on to your own giant icecubes you'll be called a racist! I've worked all my life and payed taxes and I haven't got a single giant ice cube!:mad:
And they'll eat all our seals, making out it's their 'culture'!..probably our penguins too!..where will we be then: without seals and penguins?:rant:
They'll all be down town on saturday nights, cruising about on they're polar bears and harassing our half-naked drunken women and better presented homosexuals in their incomprehensible canadian: leering suggestively and talking about tugging their 'ears' and rubbing their 'noses'!:mad:
They should go back where they bloody came from!: bobbing about on the ocean in a big cloud of steam!:rant:

Lowell Ponte the talk radio host and former Readers Digest journalist?

Readers digest journalist!! I'm suprised anyone with such a weight of academic authority in his subject could have been wrong.

If Lowell was wrong, it's almost certain that todays pc climatologists are wrong. Personally, I believe they are merely involved in a plot to make rich people drive nisssan micras instead of range rovers. I have further evidence for this theory, as our bin man's granny met someone on a bus who said it.

Lets see here... The computers they used in the 1970s for climate climate change modeling had less computing power than my PDA phone. If we are simply going by the stick your head out the window process, we MUST be going through another ice age as it is currently -34C in Chicago and it has been that way for two whole days!

How do you not freeze to death? I don't usually mind the cold, but the -1c this morning nearly killed me :P

read Micheal chrichton's State of fear,

the ice caps aren't melting btw (only at the peninsullar) there getting thicker,
global warming will probably result in a net benifit for most of the world,
computer models dont prove anything,
'global warming-environmental groups' are themselves part of a multi billion dollar industry, people tend to produce results that encourage their own funding.

read Micheal chrichton's State of fear,

the ice caps aren't melting btw (only at the peninsullar) there getting thicker,
global warming will probably result in a net benifit for most of the world,
computer models dont prove anything,
'global warming-environmental groups' are themselves part of a multi billion dollar industry, people tend to produce results that encourage their own funding.

But when I tried to do the "Wingardium Leviosa" spell from Harry Potter it didn't work.

Seriously you _could_ base your opinion on a FICTIONAL book (btw here's what some scientists had to say about Crichton's book (\http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74)), or you could believe the prevailing opinion of the majority of scientists.

I'm sure it is _possible_ that the prevailing opinion is wrong, but i for one don't wish to stake my children's future on it.

Also, I'd like to see a source for your claim that the ice caps are getting thicker. Most of the news articles and research i've seen seems to say the opposite (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073675.stm). There is also concrete evidence ("http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3172572.stm) that glaciers in Peru are disappearing, causing large scale problems for the inhabitants.

b

Seriously you _could_ base your opinion on a FICTIONAL book (btw here's what some scientists had to say about Crichton's book (\http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74))Thanks, basshedz2, saved me linking that site.

Crichton's modus operandi is much like Ayn Rand's in Atlas Shrugged - use a load of stupid fictional characters to present strawman arguments, and then debunk them. He has no credibility whatsoever.

I still think that whether we have a global cooling or warming, the good thing about all the publicity on Climate change is that it highlights ALL the damage that humans do to the planet. If it makes us all aware that we need to tread more carefully on this earth then I'm all for it.

I agree, surely if we end up using cleaner fuels because of global warming, but then it doesn't happen, isn't that a win-win? Nobody's going to lose anything by trying to be more green, so why are people grumbling so much?

I agree, surely if we end up using cleaner fuels because of global warming, but then it doesn't happen, isn't that a win-win? Nobody's going to lose anything by trying to be more green, so why are people grumbling so much?

Haven't you heard of the cooling due to particulates and jet exhausts in the atmosphere? If we stop polluting we'll all fry for sure!:o

Nope, not heard of that.

But if the amount that we use keeps increasing year by year, what happens then?

Btw, I didn't mean just in a climate context, I'm talking politically too.

Nope, not heard of that.

But if the amount that we use keeps increasing year by year, what happens then?
Btw, I didn't mean just in a climate context, I'm talking politically too.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

One 'global warming' solution is discussed in 'Orbital Mirrors' thread. Politics: 'Should we use more oil?':)

(sorry, but I don't know how to do links.:( )

I meant that if we stop being dependent on oil from the Middle East, even if global climate change doesn't happen, surely we've "won" as well politically as we've reduced our dependence on those sorts of regions? Which would mean less reason to go to war, etc.

read Micheal chrichton's State of fear,

the ice caps aren't melting btw (only at the peninsullar) there getting thicker,
global warming will probably result in a net benifit for most of the world,
computer models dont prove anything,
'global warming-environmental groups' are themselves part of a multi billion dollar industry, people tend to produce results that encourage their own funding.
you're joking right? are you seriously arguing that we should refer to a fictional book written by a science fiction writer who has absolutely no training in this field instead of thousands of scientists who do?

The same Michael Crichton who wrote book about a huge horde of diamonds in the lost city of Zinj guarded by ninja gorillas? I'm somewhat confused if you think Crichton writes non-fiction why are you wasting your time posting on Sheffield Forum when you could be off looking for those diamonds? I mean the book tells you where they are and everything.

you're joking right? are you seriously arguing that we should refer to a fictional book written by a science fiction writer who has absolutely no training in this field instead of thousands of scientists who do?

The same Michael Crichton who wrote book about a huge horde of diamonds in the lost city of Zinj guarded by ninja gorillas? I'm somewhat confused if you think Crichton writes non-fiction why are you wasting your time posting on Sheffield Forum when you could be off looking for those diamonds? I mean the book tells you where they are and everything.

Sounds like the same sort of person who thinks Jesus' descendants are alive and well in Scotland. ;)

I meant that if we stop being dependent on oil from the Middle East, even if global climate change doesn't happen, surely we've "won" as well politically as we've reduced our dependence on those sorts of regions? Which would mean less reason to go to war, etc.
Indeed it would, but of course it would also mean the oil industry make much less money, which is why they fund bull**** artists like Ball and why last year the 'American Association of Petroleum Geologists' gave Crichton their annual 'journalism' prize. I just love this quote from their communications director trying to justify giving a 'journalism' prize to a novel.

"It is fiction," conceded Larry Nation "But it has the absolute ring of truth." :hihi: :hihi:

now dont get me wrong I dont claim to know many, if any facts about global warming and am well aware that he's a fiction writer, however this book has instilled (that was previously lacking )a good dose of sceptisim in me about the whole theroy of global warming.
I dont have the funds or time to check all references he quoted, however there are references.

I also belive the summary he presents at the end of the book is truthfull.

Harry N.A. Priem,
is he a respected un biased scientest?

Everything concerned with the history and future of the planet, and indeed the Universe, is just theory, guesswork and speculation.
People have looked at static evidence and theorised on it, until has become in their eyes the truth.
The changes in the world around us occur so slowly in relation to our life span that nothing can be stated for definite.
The fact that such a big issue is being made of global warming is suss in the first place.
It is probably only there as a blinker to keep us from seeing something else.

and to gain new taxation revenue of course

Everything concerned with the history and future of the planet, and indeed the Universe, is just theory, guesswork and speculation.
People have looked at static evidence and theorised on it, until has become in their eyes the truth.
The changes in the world around us occur so slowly in relation to our life span that nothing can be stated for definite.
The fact that such a big issue is being made of global warming is suss in the first place.
It is probably only there as a blinker to keep us from seeing something else.

If you think it's 'suss' then the thing to do would be to investigate the entirety of the modelling/theory/data for yourself.
When you're done: report back here.(I'd love to do it myself but unfortunately I'm far too lazy.):)

An interesting article by a man whose views I respect http://www.resurgence.org/resurgence/issues/lovelock206.htm

If you think it's 'suss' then the thing to do would be to investigate the entirety of the modelling/theory/data for yourself.
When you're done: report back here.(I'd love to do it myself but unfortunately I'm far too lazy.):)

I will make my thesis for my professorship :hihi:

The changes in the world around us occur so slowly in relation to our life span that nothing can be stated for definite.


Which is precisely why when we can see impacts of climate change that is happening in our lifetime (e.g Kilimajaro glacier receding, sea levels rising in Pacific islands, desertification, change in the sea pH) most people take it as a worrying indicator that mankind's influence is skewing the natural cycles of the planet!
Ever heard of positive feedback btw?

a woman at work put across an arguement i find hard to dismiss tbh

she says the earths always gone through climate change, look at the last iceage, and where once was deserts is ice and where once was ice is deserts.......she says it goes through cycles.....by nature and all this greenhouse gas stuff is just to screw more money out of us

This seems to be the main argument of the skeptics but increasingly more and more skeptics are changing their stance and now admit that they feel human activities have contributed to the current climate change.
Yes the climates does go through cycles, that is not in dispute, but these changes occurred gradually and certainly not at the speed that is currently being witnessed.
I do think that some parties have over dramatised global warming though.
A channel 4 trailer for an upcoming program about religion and global warming
exclaimed " Our planet is dying!"
Rubbish! planet Earth will survive any global warming, whether mankind is able to adapt to the changes is the real question.:suspect:

Which is precisely why when we can see impacts of climate change that is happening in our lifetime (e.g Kilimajaro glacier receding, sea levels rising in Pacific islands, desertification, change in the sea pH) most people take it as a worrying indicator that mankind's influence is skewing the natural cycles of the planet!
Ever heard of positive feedback btw?

I take your point on that.
I have some photos taken in Glacier Bay in the early '70's.
Compared to modern photos there is lot more snow on the mountains, and the glaciers appear much more advanced into the bay. So something is happening there,

Regarding positive feedback, it is the essential part of a motor speed control device.
The feedback you are thinking of is probably different, though. :)

The positive feedback cycles I am thinking of are related to the changing albedo of the poles as the ice retreats affecting the amount of solar radiation reflected back to the higher atmosphere, warming the localised atmosphere, thereby increasing the rate of snow melt and ice retreat until we reach the tipping point -as Wikipedia states:Snow albedos can be as high as 90%. This is for the ideal example, however: fresh deep snow over a featureless landscape. Over Antarctica they average a little more than 80%.

If a marginally snow-covered area warms, snow tends to melt, lowering the albedo, and hence leading to more snowmelt (the ice-albedo positive feedback). This is the basis for predictions of enhanced warming in the polar and seasonally snow covered regions as a result of global warming

These positive feedback cycles can have unpredictable long-term consequences (and in climatology there are numerous examples) - hence how mankind's influence over and above the emissions from volcanoes and so on can push climate change down the slippery slope. And why the error margins in climate modelling are so great!

now dont get me wrong I dont claim to know many, if any facts about global warming and am well aware that he's a fiction writer, however this book has instilled (that was previously lacking )a good dose of sceptisim in me about the whole theroy of global warming.
I dont have the funds or time to check all references he quoted, however there are references.
Heres what some actual scientists have to say about 'State of Fear' and the 'references' used by Crichton.

The story finally ends, mercifully, after 567 pages, of which at least 100 are devoted to anti-environmental sermons and Global Warming "education". A full 20 pages of scientific references follow, along with a few pages of the author's comments on his environmental philosophy and what he feels should be done to fix the State of Fear created by the politico-legal-media complex.

I give Crichton credit for attempting to weave what is obviously to him a very important bit of personal philosophy into an action-thriller novel. I also give him credit for taking the initiative to educate himself on the Global Warming issue, something that I believe all citizens should do (if you've got 10 minutes, a good place to start is the latest scientific summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of over 2000 scientists from 100 countries working under a mandate from the United Nations in the largest peer-reviewed scientific collaboration in history). However, "State of Fear" is a disappointment both as an action-thriller novel, and as a credible source of science on the Global Warming issue. The action is fun when it happens, but is way too bogged down by the excessive sermonizing and "educating" that Crichton interjects at every opportunity in the story. I found myself skipping page after page of his characters' interminable griping to get to the action parts. And Crichton's obvious gloom about the harm excessive environmentalism is doing to the world is reflected in the book, making the mood of the story very dark, and not much fun to read.

On a scientific level, Crichton has obviously done a lot of research. The high-tech schemes of the baddies to create fake climate mayhem are all delightfully improbable, but based in fact just enough to leave you wondering if such things are really possible (not!). Unfortunately, Crichton presents a error-filled and distorted version of the Global Warming science, favoring views of the handful of contrarians that attack the consensus science of the IPCC. I list a few of the errors and distortions below:

Crichton informs us, "A large high-pressure mass was beginning to rotate, forming the ragged beginnings of a hurricane." This is false, a hurricane forms from a large mass of LOW pressure.

Dr. Kenner attacks the notion that extreme weather has increased in the past 15 years, or that Global Warming will cause an increase in extreme weather, noting, "If anything, global warming theory predicts less extreme weather." This is false, global warming theory does not predict less extreme weather. The latest IPCC Assessment Report concludes that we don't know enough to determine if events like hurricanes, tornados, and hailstorms will increase or decrease in frequency due to Global Warming. However, the report does say it is very likely that there will be more intense precipitation events over many areas, and that peak winds and rainfall rates from hurricanes are also likely to be higher. This is a logical result of the fact that a warmer Earth will have increased evaporation from the oceans, and thus more moisture will be available for precipitation.

Dr. Kenner asserts that Mt. Kilamanjaro's glaciers are not melting because of global warming, stating: "So why is it melting? Because of deforestation." However, the lead author of the study Crichton cites in the footnote for this assertion stated in a New York Times interview that he objected to his study being used by greenhouse skeptics to portray the melting of Kilimanjaro's glaciers as a "black-and-white picture that says it is either global warming or not global warming". Another author of the study noted that, "Using these preliminary findings to refute or even question global warming borders on the absurd". As discussed at great length in realclimate.org post, the research which supposedly supports Crichton's claims has been widely misquoted and misinterpreted, and much of Kilimanjaro's melting can indeed be ascribed to warming of the atmosphere since 1960. Crichton also fails to mention that all glaciers in the tropics have retreated in the past century, and at accelerated rates in the past few decades.

In a debate about whether the U.S. should sign the Kyoto Protocol to combat Global Warming, Dr. Kenner asks why we should sign a treaty that "won't, in effect, do anything at all?", stating: "The effect of Kyoto would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100". Again, this assertion has serious problems. The Kyoto Protocol calls for the industrialized countries to cut their greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2% below 1990 emission levels for the period 2005 - 2012. Developing countries do not have to cut emissions. Since the Kyoto treaty expires in 2012, it is absurd to talk about the worth of the Kyoto Protocol by extending it to 2100, assuming no emission control demands will be put on developing countries at some point in the future. A true measure of the Kyoto Protocol's worth must be measured by combining its effect with the effect of new treaties that must be negotiated to succeed Kyoto in 2012. All of the IPCC Assessment Reports have noted the need for greenhouse gas emission cuts of 50% or more by all nations by the mid- to late- 21st century, and little or no emissions by the century's end, to meet the goal of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations below a doubling of pre-industrial values. Kyoto is a small first step in achieving this goal.

Many more flawed or misleading presentations of Global Warming science exist in the book, including those on Arctic sea ice thinning, correction of land-based temperature measurements for the urban heat island effect, and satellite vs. ground-based measurements of Earth's warming. I will spare the reader additional details. On the positive side, Crichton does emphasize the little-appreciated fact that while most of the world has been warming the past few decades, most of Antarctica has seen a cooling trend. The Antarctic ice sheet is actually expected in increase in mass over the next 100 years due to increased precipitation, according to the IPCC (although recent findingsby NASA call this result into question). He also makes some reasonable challenges to the notion that global warming is increasing hurricane activity. That link has not been proven yet.

In a conversation about trying to educate an ignorant environmentalist about the realities of Global Warming, Kenner sums up for me the essence of Crichton's presentation of science in State of Fear:

"Her intentions are good, and her information is bad," Kenner said. "A prescription for disaster."

The excessive interruptions of an otherwise good story by Crichton's bad science make State of Fear a bad buy. Save a tree and put it on your library wait list. When will we get a fictionalized story with good Global Warming science in it? Both the pro-environmental Day After Tomorrow movie and now Crichton's book have done the public a disservice by fueling misconceptions about the Global Warming issue with their bad science.
For further reading

Some of the climate scientists that Crichton consulted during his research for the book have published a detailed analysis of the many errors in the book at realclimate.org. For one of the more balanced and up-to-date views of the controversies surrounding the Global Warming issue, see Dr. Stephen Schneider's web site. Dr. Schneider, one of the world's foremost climate experts, has testified frequently before Congress on environmental issues and is one of the lead authors of the IPCC scientific reports. He has criticized both industry-funded skeptics and environmental groups on their biased treatment of the Global Warming issue.

Skeptics have routinely called global warming "a hoax", and attacked the credibility of scientists promoting the idea. Are the skeptics right? To shed light on the issue, it is helpful to review how the same skeptics treated the ozone hole issue. Read the Weather Underground opinion feature, The Skeptics vs. The Ozone Hole.

The latest IPCC summary has an excellent summary of what the best scientists in the field figure we know and don't know about Global Warming.
Source (http://www.wunderground.com/education/stateoffear.asp)

Follow this link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74) for more reaction from actual scientists to science fiction author Crichton's horribly inaccurate book.

I also belive the summary he presents at the end of the book is truthfull.
So the concept that he could be writing what he honestly believes whilst being horribly mistaken escapes you? That seems to give Crichton too much credit though, this link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/michael-crichtons-state-of-confusion-ii-the-climatologists-return/) suggests that not only is Crichton factually wrong in some of his claims but if he'd actually read the material he cites he'd have known that what he wrote was incorrect. This suggests a few possbilities:

a. He read the cited material and didn't understand it - he's honest but dumb.
b. He read and understood the cited material and then lied - he's smart but dishonest.
3. He didn't read the cited material but just made stuff up and then tried to make it look impressive with citation he hoped nobody would check - he's both dishonest and dumb.

I will make my thesis for my professorship :hihi:

I don't know about a professorship, but it would be nice to see you offer one single, solitary fact to back your repeated assertions that you understand more about the Earth's climate than climatologists do.

Your argument that one glacier advancing is proof that glaciers aren't retreating in general is quite funny really. Luckily, scientists are a bit more thorough in their methods, or we'd all still be living in the stone age.

It is probably only there as a blinker to keep us from seeing something else.

Are you suggesting that tens of thousand of climate scientists in hundreds of different countries are all involved in some vast plot?

Haven't you heard of the cooling due to particulates and jet exhausts in the atmosphere? If we stop polluting we'll all fry for sure!:o

It's called global dimming.
September 11th gave climate scientist a unique window in measuring the temperature changes in the atmosphere when all airline flights were grounded for 2 days over New York. They found that the temperature unexpectedly rose a significant amount and discovered that pollutants caused clouds to create a reflective shield which was reflecting sun away from the Earth thus making the Earth cooler than it would have been.
A Horizon program even went as far as to suggest that the famines in Ethiopia which led to Live Aid may well have been a direct result of Global dimming. The program however concluded that Global warming could not be solved merely by continuing to produce these pollutants. In effect the Earth is facing 2 problems, global dimming and global warming.

More info can be found here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming

http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/GlobalWarming/globaldimming.asp

I don't know about a professorship, but it would be nice to see you offer one single, solitary fact to back your repeated assertions that you understand more about the Earth's climate than climatologists do.

Your argument that one glacier advancing is proof that glaciers aren't retreating in general is quite funny really. Luckily, scientists are a bit more thorough in their methods, or we'd all still be living in the stone age.

No, I was saying that the glacier is retreating.
I have some pics from when I was in P&O in the 70's and Glacier Bay was no where near as big as today.
We used to cruise rounfd all day near the glaciers, to hear them creaking and groaning as they moved was amazing.
And when they calved into the sea it was a sight to behold, like watching a slow motion film, with the sound a few moments later!!

From modern pics I have seen, some dont even reach the sea now, and the mountains have hardly any snow on them.

I am not disputing global warming, only what effect man has upon it.

I am not disputing global warming, only what effect man has upon it.
On what grounds do you question that? We've records of the global climate and atmosphere going back many hundreds of thousands of years from ice cores which show an undeniable correlation CO2 levels and mean global temperature and an undeniable link between climate change and atmospheric pollutants (one of the most significant of which is of course CO2) released by human activity.

On what grounds do you question that? We've records of the global climate and atmosphere going back many hundreds of thousands of years from ice cores which show an undeniable correlation CO2 levels and mean global temperature and an undeniable link between climate change and atmospheric pollutants (one of the most significant of which is of course CO2) released by human activity.

I think you may find, (I dont have any figures to hand at pres), that the overwhelming ammount is produced by the oceans and volcanoes etc.
Mankinds input is of the order of 2% I think.
In any event the output of England is minimal anyway, for us to reduce any further would be like taking a bucketful of sand off Blackpool beach

I think you may find, (I dont have any figures to hand at pres), that the overwhelming ammount is produced by the oceans
That is straight out wrong the overall the oceans are a carbon sink not a source:

All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year (current burning of fossil fuel is ~7 PgC per year). One method is able to go back in time and shows that the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. There is some uncertainty about the exact amount that the oceans have taken up, but not about the direction of the change. The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere. Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/)

and volcanoes etc.
Wrong again:

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago. Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/)

Mankinds input is of the order of 2% I think.
In any event the output of England is minimal anyway, for us to reduce any further would be like taking a bucketful of sand off Blackpool beach
What is the source for that figure?

cheers plekhanov, this proved interesting http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
spent a good portion of today wandering eyeball deep in scientific studies that I am not trained to understand the history of, however the general meaning of these is not lost on me,
being a product of the 'media generation' (obviously) I was looking for a definitive statement one way or the other that was uncontrovertably the 'answer' needless to say there wasn't one.
from the link above this seemed promising.

"The Big Picture. In Crichton's defense, those seeking to counter consensus scientific conclusions on climate change--and to use published evidence to support their own views--face an uphill battle. Naomi Oreskes, a science studies scholar at the University of California, San Diego, recently analyzed more than 900 scientific articles listed with the keywords ''global climate change,'' and failed to find a single study that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming. While such literature may exist, it appears minimal."
so naturally i went on to,
Naomi Oreskes, who wrote this just a few days ago
http://tinyurl.com/2wsutn
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/21348
but then I find things like this which muddy the waters
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/moveabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=988

which pretty much puts me in the place I ended up after reading Chritons book. ??

Harry N.A. Priem,
is he a respected un biased scientest?
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=256

That is straight out wrong the overall the oceans are a carbon sink not a source:

All the estimates show that the carbon content of the oceans is increasing by ~ 2±1 PgC every year (current burning of fossil fuel is ~7 PgC per year). One method is able to go back in time and shows that the carbon content of the oceans has increased by 118±19 PgC in the last 200 years. There is some uncertainty about the exact amount that the oceans have taken up, but not about the direction of the change. The oceans cannot be a source of carbon to the atmosphere, because we observe them to be a sink of carbon from the atmosphere. Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/06/how-much-of-the-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/)


Wrong again:

One point that is also worth making is that although volcanoes release some CO2 into the atmosphere, this is completely negligable compared to anthropogenic emissions (about 0.15 Gt/year of carbon, compared to about 7 Gt/year of human related sources) . However, over very long times scales (millions of years), variations in vulcanism are important for the eventual balance of the carbon cycle, and may have helped kick the planet out of a 'Snowball Earth' state in the Neo-proterozoic 750 million years ago. Source (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/current-volcanic-activity-and-climate/)


What is the source for that figure?

I dont know , I read it somewhere probably in Dubyas manifesto :hihi:

But I have been wrong before and I maybe this time.

It just irritates me sometimes that we so keen to beat ourselves up over something that may be purely a natural occurence.

We are all agreed that the planet runs in phases, or what have you, it may just be that we arose in a steady phase, the end of the Ice Age, 12000 years ago, and are now entering a warmer phase.
We adapted before, from the neanderthal type, prevelant during the Ice Age to our current type.
We may be undergoing a change to a type more suited to hot desert climates.
Only time will tell.

cheers plekhanov, this proved interesting http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
spent a good portion of today wandering eyeball deep in scientific studies that I am not trained to understand the history of, however the general meaning of these is not lost on me,
being a product of the 'media generation' (obviously) I was looking for a definitive statement one way or the other that was uncontrovertably the 'answer' needless to say there wasn't one.
from the link above this seemed promising.

"The Big Picture. In Crichton's defense, those seeking to counter consensus scientific conclusions on climate change--and to use published evidence to support their own views--face an uphill battle. Naomi Oreskes, a science studies scholar at the University of California, San Diego, recently analyzed more than 900 scientific articles listed with the keywords ''global climate change,'' and failed to find a single study that explicitly disagreed with the consensus view that humans are contributing to global warming. While such literature may exist, it appears minimal."
so naturally i went on to,
Naomi Oreskes, who wrote this just a few days ago
http://tinyurl.com/2wsutn
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/62/21348
but then I find things like this which muddy the waters
http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/moveabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=988

which pretty much puts me in the place I ended up after reading Chritons book. ??
Why does this put you back where you started? Naomi Oreskes surveys 900 scientific articles finding not so much as a single one doubting climate change ok lets just take another look at those figures shall we:

900 backing the global warming model 0 sceptical

now maybe I'm just naive but that seems pretty damn persuasive as to where scientific thinking is on this issue.

Yet somehow you manage to be thrown back into doubt on this issue by:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2005/05/oreskes-study-errata.html
Peiser has since retracted his claim that 34 papers "reject or doubt" anthropgenic global warming. link (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/03/peiser_admits_to_making_a_mist.php)
He has also backtracked on other criticisms of Oreskes survey and concedes:

I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous. Source (http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/ep38peiser.pdf)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182
This is an opinion piece written by a right wing economist not a scientist, why are you taking an economists word over the clear majority of scientific specialist in this field?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/moveabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=988
This is just a blog comment section and as valid as Sheffield Forum when it comes to academic rigour, the 1st posters comments are simply moronic to say that there is 'scientific consensus' on as issue (which there clealy is on climate change) is nothing like saying that science should be democratic (which it obviously should not be and isn't) it is simply a rhetorical technique for trying to draw the wider public's attention to this very important issue.

I just doe not understand how you can be 'in the place I ended up after reading Crichtons book' on the one hand you have a clear consensus of the scientific specialist on this subject (as even Oreskes's critic concedes) on the other you have an economist, a science fiction author and some random posters on a blog comment section. How can you seriously allow 3 such scientific nonentities to outweigh the clear majority of scientific specialists in your mind when considering this issue?

Harry N.A. Priem,
is he a respected un biased scientest?
I don't know if he's a respected scientist but I do know that surprise surprise he's another climate change 'sceptic' who so just happens to be in the pay of the oil industry :rolleyes: His organisation the ironically named 'Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow' has taken nearly half a million dollars from Exxon Mobil Source (http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=25)

cool, thanks for holding my hand,
when my missis looked at this thread she said,
of course you believe in global warming, you always have and (you) are just being contrary.
maybe she's right
btw plekhanov what do you do for a living?

Priem hasn't published anything since 1998, so I'm guessing he's retired.

However, it's perfectly possible for a respected, unbiased scientist to be sceptical about anthropogenic climate change. It's just that there are very many more respected, unbiased scientists who believe that it is happening, and is a serious problem.

That's how science works (at least in theory) -- respected, unbiased scientists come up with different explanations for this or that, and put the various claims to the test of observation to see which explanation is the best one in the light of the currently available evidence. When a large majority of these scientists have come to the same conclusion about something of vital importance, it's probably rational to act as if they are right.

well ur taking my car keys over my dead body- quite simple.

why not force the rich multi nationals suchas tesco to reduce packaging etc. because this hypocritical regieme won't do that they'll tax the little man and make us pay more stupid UN PROVEN green taxes

How many of these scientists are puppetts for the government, whom could have their funding etc reduced

and if u care about global warming make a stand dnt use your computer

can somebody explain global dimming to me please, i'm not sure i understand it?

can somebody explain global dimming to me please, i'm not sure i understand it?

The basic idea is that certain types of pollution, e.g. sulphates and aircraft contrails, lead to some of the incoming sunlight being reflected back, thereby making the surface a bit dimmer and partially offsetting the effects of global warming as induced by CO2, methane etc.

They also have an effect on the circulation patterns by affecting the three-dimensional distribution of what solar radiation is absorbed where in the atmosphere.

The Horizon programme on this a year or two back was unusually good (I find most of that series unwatchable nowadays, it's been dumbed down and sensationalised so much).

can somebody explain global dimming to me please, i'm not sure i understand it?

It refers to the dumbing down of educational standards world wide, of which the UK university sector is a prime example.

It refers to the dumbing down of educational standards world wide, of which the UK university sector is a prime example.

Oh dear, been marking exam scripts again have we, LordC?

The basic idea is that certain types of pollution, e.g. sulphates and aircraft contrails, lead to some of the incoming sunlight being reflected back, thereby making the surface a bit dimmer and partially offsetting the effects of global warming as induced by CO2, methane etc.

They also have an effect on the circulation patterns by affecting the three-dimensional distribution of what solar radiation is absorbed where in the atmosphere.

The Horizon programme on this a year or two back was unusually good (I find most of that series unwatchable nowadays, it's been dumbed down and sensationalised so much).forgive my ignorance but is this a good or bad thing?

[QUOTE=barny_
Bear this in mind next time you hear a politician banging on that we need to give up freedoms and yet more money to "save the planet"...[/QUOTE]

Yes it is amusing Barny - and true that much profit is being made out of climate change -
but beware the 'Ostrich Syndrome' - and the need to never run out of salt and pepper - in case, at some later date, such bland words need seasoning.

Climate change is happening - now- all the rest is irrellevant - look to the futures of your children/grandchildren, and just for them, shout your concern from the highest building - if we are wrong about it - so what ? The world will go on...

a woman at work put across an arguement i find hard to dismiss tbh

she says the earths always gone through climate change, look at the last iceage, and where once was deserts is ice and where once was ice is deserts.......she says it goes through cycles.....by nature and all this greenhouse gas stuff is just to screw more money out of us

This is a fair argument in that the world has been in various climatic states 'naturally'. But would you really want to live in the last ice age? How about the conditions of the end-Permian, where the world is thought to have been entirely covered by ice and up to 95% of all species became extinct? Humans are built for the geologically recent climate - in geological terms we're actually at a fairly cold stage and it's likely that we'd slowly warm up from here anyway, but what we've done is to vastly speed this up.

Fast change is harder to adapt to. I don't personally believe civilisation's going to end because of it or anything like that, but I do reckon quite a few country's climates will change quite dramatically in the near-to-medium future, which will cause various problems for societies and e.g. architectural conventions suited to a certain climate. The UK is right in the firing line for getting way cooler, incidentally.

well ur taking my car keys over my dead body- quite simple.

why not force the rich multi nationals suchas tesco to reduce packaging etc. because this hypocritical regieme won't do that they'll tax the little man and make us pay more stupid UN PROVEN green taxes

How many of these scientists are puppetts for the government, whom could have their funding etc reduced

and if u care about global warming make a stand dnt use your computer

Um, the government takes scientific evidence into consideration when making policy and wants accurate information, it doesn't pay scientists to tread a party line (or at least, not more than a few easily identifiable and generally American ones) - global warming is hardly a good thing for any government! Likely to have quite a big economic impact and just generally cause hassle.

[QUOTE=Crayfish;]
I don't personally believe civilisation's going to end because of it QUOTE]

I wish I shared your optimism Crayfish.
I agree with much of your post but I would have expected you to know the likely consequences of such a massive ecological disruption.

The impact of a temp change of a few degrees either way would create global chaos with crop/livestock failure on a monumental scale and a human migration of biblical dimensions.
The ecology is extremely fragile - relative minor man made events have shown to have disastrous results that are 'dominoed' into unexpected areas.
What then would be the outcome of such a massive change?
It is beyond calculation.
It is beyond our pitiable experience.
It is anyones guess...

OMNIA VICTIS AMOR.

It'd mean that countries would need to adjust to different crops and livestock. A few degrees won't happen overnight (though in the case of the UK it could all get much colder within the space of a year or two, unfortunately). People would probably move around where they could afford it over the next few years after the climate changed not to their liking.

I'm not really into this whole DOOOOOM thing, have to say. But whatever makes you happy!

You're right about the ecological side though. Wildlife get a much worse deal out of it than humans are likely to. That's why I try and keep a low carbon profile wherever possible! At the end of the day though, energy production is the source of most carbon and it's imperative that new energy technology is designed as quickly as possible. What people do on an individual level won't really make a big impact unless we switch to really, really boring lifestyles, which almost no one is prepared to do.

forgive my ignorance but is this a good or bad thing?

Global Dimming has thought to have masked the true extent of how quickly the climate is warming up.
Although it appears to have "protected" the Earth from warming up more rapidly it is not a desirable long term solution to keep dimming the Earth.
More pollutants in the atmosphere has obvious detrimental health effects on
man and wildlife a like.
Global dimming also means that the sun's ray have dimished in power drastically over the last 50 years or so. This reduction in power has been measured in Europe, Israel and Australia, this means that in some countries their crops fail to harvest properley. The BBC Horizon programme even suggested that the Ethiopian Famine which sparked off Live Aid may have been as a direct result of Global dimming which was induced by the West
sending pollutants up into the atmosphere..... in other words the nations which were able to give the most to Live Aid were probably the nations that caused the famine and all it's human suffering in the first place.

here is an alternative to the conventional wisdom on climate change. It basically argues that, if there are changes in global temperatures, these are due to changes in solar energy, not to greenhouse gases or other forms of human pollution. In other words, its the sun wot done it (and no, the authors are not in the pay of the oil companies). Worth discussing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

In a letter here (http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm) - it's not long and well worth reading



And to illuminate this an amusing quote from 1976:



Bear this in mind next time you hear a politician banging on that we need to give up freedoms and yet more money to "save the planet"...

it just sounds like this man is annoyed for not getting any recognision. seem to be blowing his trumpet about his qualifications more than what he's actually proved.

In other words, its the sun wot done it (and no, the authors are not in the pay of the oil companies).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

He may not be in the pay of the oil companies but he is promoting his new book!!

"Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

For one that has only a "theory" about climate change he is very quick to dismiss others. His 90% comment about Nuclear Fission is hardly relevant, the US administration was 100% certain that Saddam had WMDs... so what?:suspect:

Um, the government takes scientific evidence into consideration when making policy and wants accurate information, it doesn't pay scientists to tread a party line (or at least, not more than a few easily identifiable and generally American ones) - global warming is hardly a good thing for any government! Likely to have quite a big economic impact and just generally cause hassle.


Unfortunately governements tend to use scientific evidence for their own ends rather than the public good. Our own govt. have decided to distribute Al Gore's slideshow to all UK schools in spite of it being way OTT compared to the recent summary report produced by the IPCC. No doubt the purpose is to prepare our younger generation for swingeing increases in 'green' taxation planned for the future.

Similarly Gordon Brown used the Stern Review (which he commissioned) as an excuse to increase the taxes on air travel.

If our politicians were at all inclined to make public transport affordable and reliable then their concerns about climate change might be taken seriously, but indications so far are that it will just be used as excuse for ever more draconian forms of taxation with no tangible return for the long suffering taxpayer.

here is an alternative to the conventional wisdom on climate change. It basically argues that, if there are changes in global temperatures, these are due to changes in solar energy, not to greenhouse gases or other forms of human pollution. In other words, its the sun wot done it (and no, the authors are not in the pay of the oil companies). Worth discussing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece


Calder shows the sloppiness of his thinking in the first argument he puts forward, where he attempts to compare an international body of experts - with no agenda other than detecting the truth - who say they are 90 per cent certain, with a much smaller group of scientists (50 years ago) working on a very specific project in which they had a vested interest in suceeding, claiming they are 90 per cent certain they were producing results.



The next argument is that anyone not following the consensus is cut out of funding and ridiculed, thus implying that consensus climate scientists are basically corrupt.


Next, he says: ''Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages.''

Is this guy a scientist? Even a fair proportion of GCSE failures must be aware that climate change produces freak weather conditions which can result in cold weather systems being temporarily displaced to areas they don't normally go.

He goes on to list other instances where places are getting colder. I thought he was arguing that Global warming wasn't caused by human activity, not that it doesn't exist? It is proved beyond doubt that average global temperatures are rising.

As for his claim that Antartica is not warming up, have a google and see what other scientists think.
Of course, you'll have to take them with a pinch of salt, because western governments are keen to withold funding from any study group which does not back the greenhouse theory, according to Calder. :huh:

Where's the logic in that? If the Greenhouse theory is true, it will cause the fall of Governments and the ruin of economies, if there were any conspiracy (and there is) it would be to downplay the role of carbon emissions.

Calder is fighting a losing battle. The skeptics arguments are becoming more and more desperate as one by one they are concusively demolished. Pretty soon they will have the credibility of Flat Earthers or Creationists. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean they won't retain a disproportionate ammount of political clout.

here is an alternative to the conventional wisdom on climate change. It basically argues that, if there are changes in global temperatures, these are due to changes in solar energy, not to greenhouse gases or other forms of human pollution. In other words, its the sun wot done it (and no, the authors are not in the pay of the oil companies). Worth discussing.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/) has a long discussion of the pros and cons of this.

I note that one of Svensmark's co-authors on the latest paper on the possible cosmic ray link says:

"I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If [i.e., the question of whether] the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research."

Jean Auel wrote the "Earth's Children" series (Clan of the Cave Bear, etc).
They are set in Ice Age Europe. Her heroine Ayla discovers firemaking with flints.
So now it becomes easy to light fires. OK, this is a novel, but someone did make that discovery.
Now the ice has receded from the south of France, the mammoths and wooly rhinos are gone, and the sea level has risen considerably since then.
Should we get a time machine, go back, and shoot the humans who discovered fire?

BTW, on a recent cruise we were told that Capt. Vancouver found Glacier Bay full of ice all the way to the sea, and in his day we could not have cruised up it.

Unfortunately governements tend to use scientific evidence for their own ends rather than the public good. Our own govt. have decided to distribute Al Gore's slideshow to all UK schools in spite of it being way OTT compared to the recent summary report produced by the IPCC. No doubt the purpose is to prepare our younger generation for swingeing increases in 'green' taxation planned for the future.

Similarly Gordon Brown used the Stern Review (which he commissioned) as an excuse to increase the taxes on air travel.

If our politicians were at all inclined to make public transport affordable and reliable then their concerns about climate change might be taken seriously, but indications so far are that it will just be used as excuse for ever more draconian forms of taxation with no tangible return for the long suffering taxpayer.

True, good points there. The air travel tax thing is blatantly just an exercise in money grabbing with a veneer of responsibility. In a way I can see that Al Gore is probably a little bit more exciting than the IPCC, and maybe it's good for children to be interested in the subject and feel a sense of urgency about climate change - but on the other hand you're right when you say it's quite dramatised and exaggerated.

I think that the government have been overspending a little recently (all these noble causes like an utterly pointless war, incredibly expensive replacement of an utterly pointless fleet of nuclear submarines) so I doubt the air tax will be the first 'eco-tax' they install.

The world's due some serious elections, be a lot happier when the current UK and USA governments bugger off.

RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/10/taking-cosmic-rays-for-a-spin/) has a long discussion of the pros and cons of this.

I note that one of Svensmark's co-authors on the latest paper on the possible cosmic ray link says:

"I am in no way out to attribute what has gone on in the last century solely to cosmic rays or anything else and I am certainly not out to belittle the effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. To me this is simply an interesting piece of science that looks like it could be another piece of the climate puzzle. If [i.e., the question of whether] the size of this piece is big enough to make an impact on past, present or future climate is the subject of future research."

Hmmm, seems to me that Svensmark is sitting on the fence a little more than his co author Calder, still it just goes to show you that anyone can try and make money out of their own "theories" by publishing a new book even if they are not even totally convinced by them themselves!:suspect:

Hmmm, seems to me that Svensmark is sitting on the fence a little more than his co author Calder, still it just goes to show you that anyone can try and make money out of their own "theories" by publishing a new book even if they are not even totally convinced by them themselves!:suspect:

Just to clarify, the co-author who contributed to the RealClimate discussion was a co-author on the paper, not the book -- it wasn't Svensmark himself. It does sound like it's been "sexed up" a bit for the book. I don't know whether this is because Svensmark himself believes that cosmic rays have a significant effect on climate -- I'm sure he would dearly love there to be such a link, as he's apparently based most of his career on trying to prove this. I would suggest that the co-author quoted above (Enghoff) might have more of an objective view of the significance of their work, as he doesn't have so much personal career capital tied up in it.

It does illustrate that there are quite a lot of publicly funded researchers who are looking into possible alternative explanations for climate, and that they are not being hushed up -- the latest paper was in Proc Roy Soc A, which is a pretty prestigious "establishment" journal which is sufficiently well publicised that it sometimes even registers on journalists' radars, as evinced by the Times article.

Hmmm, seems to me that Svensmark is sitting on the fence a little more than his co author Calder, still it just goes to show you that anyone can try and make money out of their own "theories" by publishing a new book even if they are not even totally convinced by them themselves!:suspect:

Heretics in any field tend to get criticised as much for their supposed motives as for what they say. It is ironic that you focus so much on the vested interests of the climate change skeptics. There seems to be an implicit assumption among the zealots of climate change orthodoxy that vested interests reside only in the camp of the skeptics. I will wager that there is just as much self-serving motivation in the orthodox camp as elsewhere (climate change zealots also write books, receive research grants and shinny up the career ladders of their professions etc). Morever, challenging conventional orthodoxies can be damaging to one's career. As good example of this, in another field, was the treatment of F.A.Hayek, who was turned down for a prestigious Economics professorship in the US at a time when Keynesianism was the prevailing conventional wisdom and when anyone who had the temerity to depart from Keynesian orthodoxies was regarded as a bit of a loony.

The venom and bile directed at anyone who challenges the conventional wisdoms on climate change is itself worthy at a research study. Look at the treatment meted out to the 'skeptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomborg, who was even on the receiving end of a government-sponsored kangaroo court, worthy of the Spanish inquisition (the aim being to discredit him and destroy his career). Had he lived at the time of Galileo, I am sure he would have been threatened with burning at the stake. It is currently the case that any claim, or any statistic, provided by the pro-climate change lobby is accepted at its face value, whereas any claim to the contrary is rigorously scrutinised, with the purpose of finding weaknesses or mistakes.

As mentioned on another thread, climate change has become the latest cause celebre of the hectoring classes (and how they love to hector us).I am not in the least surprised that the celebrity consciences are now jumping on the climate change bandwagon and are threatening us with a series of concerts on a bigger scale even than Live8. This, together with the herd psychology which underpins it, should give us pause for thought.

:hihi:
Heretics in any field tend to get criticised as much for their supposed motives as for what they say. It is ironic that you focus so much on the vested interests of the climate change skeptics. There seems to be an implicit assumption among the zealots of climate change orthodoxy that vested interests reside only in the camp of the skeptics. I will wager that there is just as much self-serving motivation in the orthodox camp as elsewhere (climate change zealots also write books, receive research grants and shinny up the career ladders of their professions etc). Morever, challenging conventional orthodoxies can be damaging to one's career. As good example of this, in another field, was the treatment of F.A.Hayek, who was turned down for a prestigious Economics professorship in the US at a time when Keynesianism was the prevailing conventional wisdom and when anyone who had the temerity to depart from Keynsian orthodoxies was regarded as a bit of a loony.

The venom and bile directed at anyone who challenges the conventional wisdoms on climate change is itself worthy at a research study. Look at the treatment meted out to the 'skeptical environmentalist' Bjorn Lomborg, who was even on the receiving end of a government-sponsored kangaroo court, worthy of the Spanish inquisition (the aim being to discredit him and destroy his career). Had he lived at the time of Galileo, I am sure he would have been threatened with burning at the stake. It is currently the case that any claim, or any statistic, provided by the pro-climate change lobby is accepted at its face value, whereas any claim to the contrary is rigorously scrutinised, with the purpose of finding weaknesses or mistakes.

As mentioned on another thread, climate change has become the latest cause celebre of the hectoring classes (and how they love to hector us).I am not in the least surprised that the celebrity consciences are now jumping on the climate change bandwagon and are threatening us with a series of concerts on a bigger scale even than Live8. This, together with the herd psychology which underpins it, should give us pause for thought.


You miss the simple fact that the 'zealots of climate change' are up against the zealots of unfettered oil fueled global economic expansion. Poor old George Bush and the global oil industry are being pushed around by the international pc conspiracy, which now apparently involves the majority of the scientific community. :hihi:

Your arguments are classic, in that they avoid any specific scientific discussion, opting for slandering the character and motivation of anyone who's opinions on climate change are at odds with the advancement of right wing economic dogma.

It is currently the case that any claim, or any statistic, provided by the pro-climate change lobby is accepted at its face value, whereas any claim to the contrary is rigorously scrutinised, with the purpose of finding weaknesses or mistakes.


Certainly not true if you're talking about scientists, rather than journalists or politicians or the public at large. Surprising new findings will certainly be rigorously scrutinised, more so than a paper that just adds another grain of sand to the pile, but by no means from a standpoint of "it must be wrong, let's find out why".

Certainly not true if you're talking about scientists, rather than journalists or politicians or the public at large. Surprising new findings will certainly be rigorously scrutinised, more so than a paper that just adds another grain of sand to the pile, but by no means from a standpoint of "it must be wrong, let's find out why".

I am not sure that they will. Look at the very favourable response to the Stern report, which in fact is full of speculative assumptions on the economic effects of climate change. Stern himself is an Economist, not a climatologist, and yet virtually every statement on climate change in his report has been taken virtually at face value by those already converted to the current climate change orthodoxy - herd psychology is never a good basis for progress in science.

:hihi:



You miss the simple fact that the 'zealots of climate change' are up against the zealots of unfettered oil fueled global economic expansion. Poor old George Bush and the global oil industry are being pushed around by the international pc conspiracy, which now apparently involves the majority of the scientific community. :hihi:

Your arguments are classic, in that they avoid any specific scientific discussion, opting for slandering the character and motivation of anyone who's opinions on climate change are at odds with the advancement of right wing economic dogma.

You miss my point entirely. I am very much in favour of a serious and open debate on climate change. However, in the current climate (if you don't mind the pun) the prospects of this are being seriously hampered by the slanders and character assassinations meted out to anyone who dares to challenge the climate change lobbies.

herd psychology is never a good basis for progress in science.

Very true, which is why it's a good job that progress in science isn't governed by it. Although I take your point that economists might like to run with the herd -- economists are more like politicians than they are like scientists.

In case any one has missed this little snippet, its common to refer to the last ice age as if its in the past in fact we are actually in the final throws of an ice age. specifically it will be over when all the ice has melted and we have no polar ice caps. Regardless of the effect of mans efforts the fact that the earth is warming naturally is inescapable and part of the natural cycle. An example of this natural cyclic process can be seen if you look on a map, there is a country called Greenland, the reason it got its name was when the Vikings colonised it it was green but in just a few tens of years it became too cold and uninhabitable for their way of life and they abandoned it, we are just returning to that part of the cycle but general the trend is to get warmer as we approach the true end of the ice age.
Its common to blame the burning of fossil fuels and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere for global warming but where did the carbon in those fuels come from? The atmosphere!
We, that is modern mankind, have become used to our climate being what it is and we don't want it to change, our species pompous arrogance in thinking that we are in control has lead to the current panic about climate change which has given the greedy politicians an opening to excercise more controls on our freedom and take more money out of our pockets.
I don't advocate putting our heads in the sand and doing nothing, we can if we all work together perhaps slow this inevitable change. As a nation of innovators and inventors we should be developing the processes and techniques that will have a positive effect on climate change and helping others to follow suit.
It is absolutely no use, we in this country giving up our cars and industry and then taking the moral highground with the Indians, Chinese and Americans. They will just laugh at us and carry on while we sit in our crumbling ivory tower.

It'd mean that countries would need to adjust to different crops and livestock. .....the UK it could all get much colder within the space of a year or two, ...
People would probably move around where they could afford it over the next few years after the climate changed ...

I'm not really into this whole DOOOOOM thing, have to say.
But whatever makes you happy!

........What people do on an individual level won't really make a big impact unless we switch to really, really boring lifestyles....
================================================== ========

Just for the record Cray, I'm not into dooooom either, - just concerned re the future of the planet generally and my family in particular, the possibility of planetary annihilation doesn't make me happy..

To 'adjust' to different food crops and livestock would be a task requiring vast amounts of 'new' expertise, (which we don't have), complex changes to soil composition/ph etc would have to be made - the need for new machinery with which plants are planted/harvested, then processing -preserving - packing - storing - distribution would all present new problems.
Livestock would be a far greater challenge - in short, the process of changing over to non indiginous food sources would take many years and masses of effort/expertise.


Where would people 'move around' to?
Your scenario is a wee bit simplistic Cray - no offence - we have no idea whatsoever regarding the extent of sea level increase - local weather pattern disruption and the effects of thousands of other imponderable 'knock ons'.

And I would have thought that a 'really really boring lifestyle' would be preferable to a really really dead type lifestyle.
Not that I agree that conserving the planets resourses is boring - its just, 'right' and always was 'right' and there almost always have been people who fervently believed that it is right, (as a scumbag politition said, "We've gone from caretakers to rapists.")

Regarding 'individual efforts' to curb our worst excesses of greed and indifference, - why not, 'pick the lowest fruits first'?
If we wait for governments to act the world will be a crisp black little cinder
floating gently away into the vast recesses of mans' ignominy.

well its not really changed my views hopefully this will bring the price of v8 muscle cars down

well its not really changed my views hopefully this will bring the price of v8 muscle cars down


My, - you're so manly...

The postion with climate change is similar to the situation with oil and coal........etc......

The scaremongers and drama queens make out that in about 5 [?] years or so, fossil fuel will run out and we will all be back up in the trees again.

Similarly the ' doom and gloom ' climate-changers paint a picture of us all boiling to death or maybe drowning [ take your pick ].

On every occasion, in the past, when Man has faced world-wide problems or change, Mankind has come up with a solution. Thus, the world gets healthier, richer and safer each century and so the population increases.

Changes in climate and energy obviously DO take place, but so gradually, that we are given time to deal with such changes. The drama queens, I think, hate this idea ! Life, to them, is like one of these ' serious ' American films that warn us all that we are living ' on the edge of destruction ' !

The only people who benefit by all this hysteria are the scientists who are funded generously by various governments and who whizz off to international conferences, 1st class travel of course, to discuss saving energy !

Maybe these are the same scientists who warned us about acid rain forests, over-population in rich countries, Aids [ which would kill millions in W. Europe ], mad -cow disease, bird-flu, a flesh -eating disease ..........et al.....and some I can't remember.

Even the latest Cassandra, re- climate change did not present his conclusions after a scientific investigation. His report was a summation of various scientific reports. Some of the original scientists have since complained that he only considered THEIR ' worst scenarios '. [ Details about this can be checked in a recent Spectator magazine article ].

1st class travel of course

You've got to be kidding!

My, - you're so manly...

no reasearch by this so "trustworthy" government is going to remove my freedom, to drive/ride wot the hek i want

and the supercharge it for good measure

You've got to be kidding!

I can well believe it. Top line academic or scientific conferences frequently include first class air travel and five star hotels (or something very near it). I will wager that the attendees at the recent high profile conference on climate change in Paris were treated to these luxuries.

My favourite examples of junketry of this kind come perhaps inevitably from the EU. 70 members of the European Parliament went on an all-expenses paid trip last year to a top resort in Barbados (not for the first time) to discuss the problems of world poverty.

MEPs maybe. Scientists? I don't think so!

Except maybe for some kind of 'conference' where there were going to be politicians or some such, who might assume that everybody travels in the luxury to which they're accustomed, and arrange for the other attendees to travel in similar luxury. But even then I doubt it.

MEPs maybe. Scientists? I don't think so!

Except maybe for some kind of 'conference' where there were going to be politicians or some such, who might assume that everybody travels in the luxury to which they're accustomed, and arrange for the other attendees to travel in similar luxury. But even then I doubt it.

You would be surprised captain. I have been on one of these junkets myself (first class air travel to another continent, five star hotel, a nice watch as a gift) in return for delivering a conference paper at a UN-sponsored conference. I don't think that this experience is in any way unique. The international conference circuit is quite big business these days.

Computing technical error: my post now appears below this one.

Heretics in any field tend to get criticised as much for their supposed motives as for what they say. It is ironic that you focus so much on the vested interests of the climate change skeptics. There seems to be an implicit assumption among the zealots of climate change orthodoxy that vested interests reside only in the camp of the skeptics.

Actually, I am quite open to varying theories about the causes of the current climate change. What I am critising is Calder's own assumption that ALL those that believe in human induced climate change must have ulterior motives and hidden agendas. Whilst there may be some that do have vested interests there are just as many that don't except the well being of their childrens' children.
Calder mocks the "only" 90% certainty of the IPCC but fails to tell us what he thinks is the certainty of his own theory!
Let's face it Calder is as guilty as those that he accuses by lining up his own pockets by promoting his new book whilst there is still milage in the global warming debate, hell he's even conveniently mention his publisher in the article.
Why is he trying to profit from his "new theory", if he really has a credible theory then a free publicly available paper would serve it's purpose much more than any book that you had to pay for.:suspect:

Similarly the ' doom and gloom ' climate-changers paint a picture of us all boiling to death or maybe drowning [ take your pick ].

On every occasion, in the past, when Man has faced world-wide problems or change, Mankind has come up with a solution. Thus, the world gets healthier, richer and safer each century and so the population increases.


Yeah, you'll be alright in kansas. ''There's no place like home, there's no place like home.''

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Hypothesis

You would be surprised captain. I have been on one of these junkets myself (first class air travel to another continent, five star hotel, a nice watch as a gift) in return for delivering a conference paper at a UN-sponsored conference. I don't think that this experience is in any way unique. The international conference circuit is quite big business these days.

UN-sponsored junkets maybe -- serious scientific conferences, no. I have been to many of those, and nobody gets the VIP treatment, with the possible exception of the odd Nobel prizewinner or whatever.

Back on topic, it's true that climate change sceptics accuse people who think that anthropogenic climate change is a reality of having a herd mentality, also that the latter accuse the former of being mindlessly contrarian as per the 9/11 conspiracy theorists; and that both sides accuse each other of basing their beliefs on vested interests rather than what they see as the facts. But such ad hominem arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with the science, and indeed it's mostly non-scientists who emphasise these things. They're only human of course, but believe it or not most scientists (on both sides of the debate) do rise above these things.

Back on topic, it's true that climate change sceptics accuse people who think that anthropogenic climate change is a reality of having a herd mentality, also that the latter accuse the former of being mindlessly contrarian as per the 9/11 conspiracy theorists; and that both sides accuse each other of basing their beliefs on vested interests rather than what they see as the facts. But such ad hominem arguments have nothing whatsoever to do with the science, and indeed it's mostly non-scientists who emphasise these things. They're only human of course, but believe it or not most scientists (on both sides of the debate) do rise above these things.


I think you fail to take into account the intense rivalry and competitiveness, (and indeed cattiness, spite and malice) which exist within the scientific community (as they do in many other fields of knowledge). As you say, they are only human. It would indeed be nice to think that differences of opinion focus entirely upon the intrinsic merits of the theories espoused by different groups. However, tell this to Bjorn Lomborg, who has been hounded from pillar to post for questioning some of the principle articles of faith on climate change.

tell this to Bjorn Lomborg, who has been hounded from pillar to post for questioning some of the principal articles of faith on climate change.

Maybe, but he isn't a scientist. TBH I don't know much about him, but people that I know who have followed his case, and whose opinions I respect, tell me that although he means well and deserves to be listened to, he doesn't have a great understanding of scientific documents.

Maybe, but he isn't a scientist. .

A quick google tells me he has a doctoate in political science. I'd be interested to know how that qualifies him to be a leading public detractor of scientific data in a different field.

In May 2004 he organized the "Copenhagen Consensus" which brought together some of the world's top economists.

Surely having such strong involvement in global economics would automatically bias him in his views on climate change anyway?

Lomborg is also an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Bussiness School - another conflict of interests.
Maybe the reason he comes in for so much stick is that he is seen as representing the bussiness lobby, rather than being involved in genuine sientific research.

I think you fail to take into account the intense rivalry and competitiveness, (and indeed cattiness, spite and malice) which exist within the scientific community.

Again, that's not my experience, on the whole. The exception rather than the rule.

In May 2004 he organized the "Copenhagen Consensus" which brought together some of the world's top economists.

Surely having such strong involvement in global economics would automatically bias him in his views on climate change anyway?



Well, not necessarily.

Stern (of Stern report fame) is also an Economist, which has not prevented him from reaching radically different conclusions to those of Lomborg (and vice versa). In the article below, Lomborg analyses some of the key points made by Stern and concludes that many of the statistics upon which it is based rest upon speculation and supposition (with the worst case scenarios being taken as virtually inevitable). As for being biased towards the business lobby, Lomborg has repeatedly argued that we ought to focus our attention on problems such as world poverty, hunger, eradication of disease etc, which are very real. These are not the main priorities of the business lobby. Indeed, the business lobby would no doubt vigorously oppose the implementation of Lomborg's policy priorities.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182

Thanks for the link LordC, but the disagreement there seems to be over the economic consequences of global warming, and of different possible mitigation strategies, rather than the science. Indeed I note that Lomborg agrees that "climate change is a real problem, and ... is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions".

[The "worst case scenarios" referred to are clearly economic scenarios, not climatological ones.]

Thanks for the link LordC, but the disagreement there seems to be over the economic consequences of global warming, and of different possible mitigation strategies, rather than with the science. Indeed I note that Lomborg agrees that "climate change is a real problem, and ... is caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions".

Lomborg has never denied that climate change is a problem (contrary to what many of his detractors say about him). His argument is over priorities, i.e. he argues that we have more pressing and serious problems which we could and should address. This is where his dispute with orthodox opinion on climate change comes in, because he thinks that many of its proponents have used very dubious evidence in support of their policy recommendations (in particular, speculation has been bandied about as if it is proven fact).

Lomborg has never denied that climate change is a problem (contrary to what many of his detractors say about him). His argument is over priorities, i.e. he argues that we have more pressing and serious problems which we could and should address. This is where his dispute with orthodox opinion on climate change comes in, because he thinks that many of its proponents have used very dubious evidence in support of their policy recommendations (in particular, speculation has been bandied about as if it is proven fact).

Now I see what the problem is - the problem is what you mean by "orthodox opinion" here.

If by "orthodox opinion" you mean the opinion that rapid climate change is currently happening, and that this is to a large extent caused by human activities (rather than cosmic rays or whatever), then I agree with Lomborg that the orthodox opinion is correct (or at least that there is a very large burden of proof on anybody who doesn't think so - the science is pretty clear-cut).

If, on the other hand, the "orthodox opinion" is that this climate change is the most serious, or even the only serious, problem facing the world at the moment, then I agree with you and him that this isn't at all obviously true. [I mean, it *might* be true, but it's not *obviously* true.] Off the top of my head I can think of two other problems that are probably at least as serious - overpopulation (the most glaringly obvious one) and access to water resources. [These are of course social or political or economic issues, rather than scientific ones, though they can be informed by the science, and I'm sure that people are working towards addressing them in a more scientific manner.]

To 'adjust' to different food crops and livestock would be a task requiring vast amounts of 'new' expertise, (which we don't have)

Where would people 'move around' to?

Your scenario is a wee bit simplistic Cray - no offence - we have no idea whatsoever regarding the extent of sea level increase - local weather pattern disruption and the effects of thousands of other imponderable 'knock ons'.

Regarding 'individual efforts' to curb our worst excesses of greed and indifference, - why not, 'pick the lowest fruits first'?
If we wait for governments to act the world will be a crisp black little cinder
floating gently away into the vast recesses of mans' ignominy.

Temperatures will change but only in very few food-growing places are they likely be outside of the range of temperatures in which food is currently grown in the world somewhere. It'd just be a redistribution.

For the most part, temperatures will change over the order of decades, so it won't be an overnight 'argh we need new crops, livestock and machines' but a gradual and appreciable change for which strategies can be designed in advance. I've mentioned that the UK and some other places in the Northern Hemisphere may change more quickly, but they're not responsible for producing the bulk of the food that we eat anyway, and there'd still be time to plan and adapt.

People will move to the climate they most enjoy, as they do now. I'd believe that doom wasn't up your street if you hadn't followed it by 'total planetary annihilation' and 'the world will be a crisp black little cinder'... :)

I agree that it's good for people to cut down on energy usage where they can but I'm not going to preach outside the remit of the facts to try and motivate them to do that. In my reasonably informed opinion, anthropogenic climate change won't lead to total planetary annihilation or anywhere close to it in the next couple of centuries. Not always right though, I'm just very nearly always right.

But it's not just about humans, is it? If the ecosystems break down then no matter how far we move or how much we change the crops we grow and the animals we rear, if there aren't enough trees to use up all the carbon dioxide, we're screwed. I don't think people realise how fragile the world's ecosystems are. If there is large scale climate change, then of course the planet will recover- eventually, ecosystems will level themselves out and a balance will be achieved. That's what ecosystems do. But it might not be the same balance we have now, and it might not be a balance that is conducive to human life.

Think about the event that wiped the dinosaurs out (possibly a climate change event itself)- they got wiped out, but the ecosystem recovered and different life-forms flourished.

And what about the people who aren't able to move? Again, it will be the poor and the disadvantaged who suffer. I just can't get my head around the fact that we can start to do something about this now, but people are dragging their heels.

Scientific papers are rigourously challenged by peers. Have you any idea how difficult it is to get a paper published in a good scientific journal? It's damn tough. Scientific papers have to go through a huge amount of peer review and editing before they are allowed to be published- these cranks that spout nonsense about how climate change isn't happening just have to tell the media and their views are put across, without scrutiny from the scientific community. I know which I trust.

[QUOTE=Fareast;1948608]
On every occasion, in the past, when Man has faced world-wide problems or change, Mankind has come up with a solution. Thus, the world gets healthier, richer and safer each century and so the population increases.::Quote;
==================================================

My, - you're so manly...

Which planet were you referring to here?
Who became healthier?
Who became richer?
And, WHO BECAME ----- SAFER?????

One clear fact that has emerged from this thread is how tenacious and powerful is the psychology of denial.

Massive and destructive shifts in recent weather patterns, which have caused cataclysmic destruction, are not by any chance, a hint of a likely future are they?
Of course they are not - happens every third millenium (around the August bank holiday usually)

Another surprise for me is the pitiable grasp that some have of the dynamics of the complex interactions of life on earth. From the microscopic to the massive. Our interdependence is absolute; from bacteria in yoghurt, to the whales in the vast seas, the survival of each depends upon the health of the other.
The chain of life is weakened, i.m.o. to the point where, unless immediate and fairly drastic measures are implemented NOW, life on earth will undergo enormous, irreversible, catastrophic change.

It's easy for you to accuse people of 'scaremongering' and of being doom and gloom merchants - of course people would rather believe that everything's going to be fine - as I say repeatedly, - maybe it will and if it is , you can call me all the names under the sun - you can kick my arse into the (unfrozen) North sea. - As long as my children and their children, are not condemned to struggle against insurmountable, avoidable problems of OUR making.

P.S. Well put Kell83.

[
Which planet were you referring to here?
Who became healthier?
Who became richer?
And, WHO BECAME ----- SAFER?????

One clear fact that has emerged from this thread is how tenacious and powerful is the psychology of denial.


.

Spot on.

The other thing that has become clear is that so many people will form the opinion they are most comfortable with and then find the evidence (usually hearsay) to back it up, rather than doing even the most basic reseach on the subject before offering their opinions.

But it's not just about humans, is it? If the ecosystems break down then no matter how far we move or how much we change the crops we grow and the animals we rear, if there aren't enough trees to use up all the carbon dioxide, we're screwed. I don't think people realise how fragile the world's ecosystems are. If there is large scale climate change, then of course the planet will recover- eventually, ecosystems will level themselves out and a balance will be achieved. That's what ecosystems do. But it might not be the same balance we have now, and it might not be a balance that is conducive to human life.

Think about the event that wiped the dinosaurs out (possibly a climate change event itself)- they got wiped out, but the ecosystem recovered and different life-forms flourished.

And what about the people who aren't able to move? Again, it will be the poor and the disadvantaged who suffer. I just can't get my head around the fact that we can start to do something about this now, but people are dragging their heels.

Scientific papers are rigourously challenged by peers. Have you any idea how difficult it is to get a paper published in a good scientific journal? It's damn tough. Scientific papers have to go through a huge amount of peer review and editing before they are allowed to be published- these cranks that spout nonsense about how climate change isn't happening just have to tell the media and their views are put across, without scrutiny from the scientific community. I know which I trust.

This is true. Not looking great for wildlife and many important habitats such as rainforests - I see much bigger problems in conservation of ecosystems than the human problems, which will not be nice but should be surmountable. Not a lot of species have the same capacity for adaptation that we do.

Basically though, the problem is there are too many people. Either technology needs to advance to a point that allows more people to exist safely in the space we have, or the number of people needs to drop to the amount that can currently be supported by our world resources.

Which is why I give money to charities interested in supporting climate change and conserving biodiversity, but not those that try to increase the amount of unproductive people in the world without paying attention to the foundations necessary to support people in the first place. This isn't necessarily a view I'd support completely but just to throw some controversy in -

'If you killed off proven repeat criminals, apathetic unemployed spongers and the uneducated masses in minimally exporting impoverished countries the world population would be roughly right'. Would this be preferable to climate change and overpopulation?

Here's an update from Real Climate regarding Calder's self promoting Times article:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/nigel-calder-in-the-times/

They don't seem to be too impressed with Calder's "new theory"

'If you killed off proven repeat criminals, apathetic unemployed spongers and the uneducated masses in minimally exporting impoverished countries the world population would be roughly right'. Would this be preferable to climate change and overpopulation?

There was someone else once with similar views - he was called Adolf Hitler.

It is always very easy to say that other people should die for the overall good of the world, would you vote for it when they came around to defining a category you would fall into?

'If you killed off proven repeat criminals, apathetic unemployed spongers and the uneducated masses in minimally exporting impoverished countries the world population would be roughly right'. Would this be preferable to climate change and overpopulation?

If WHO killed off crims? Perhaps you would like the job.

If the unemployed are NOT apathetic - are they spared the death sentence?

Stop trolling you fart.

Basically though, the problem is there are too many people. Either technology needs to advance to a point that allows more people to exist safely in the space we have, or the number of people needs to drop to the amount that can currently be supported by our world resources.



Ironically it is actually technology advances that have allowed the human population to flourish!
Man is probably the only species on Earth that has managed to turn nature on it's head. In the wild only the fittest survive, but man with all his medicines and drugs has managed to keep alive millions who would have perished if nature had it's way. Hell I would have not survived myself had it not been for manmade medicines so I have mixed views on whether man should manipulate nature.
Even the worst global warming isn't going to end the world but it may make it more uncomfortable for some populations of mankind and animals to exist.
Contrary to alarmist rhetoric the Earth is not dying! One thing is for certain Earth and life on it will continue long after mankind has died out.