to think climete change is a pile of bollocks?

[moogy1a]

Summers in Britain to get colder and wetter

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-20758780

earlier this year," oh no, they're going to get hotter and drier"
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9038988/Climate-change-will-make-UK-new-holiday-destination.html

climate change scients cherry pick the data they need to fit whatever political agenda they need it to fit.
If you start looking into reports, they are a huge mess of completely contradictory results.
I also like the way the term"global warming" has been quietly ditched in favour of climate change as it became increasingly obvious the world wasn't hotting up.

Oh and BTW it was a lot colder 12000 years ago.
6000-7000 years ago was the likely Holocene Thermal Maximum, and it was a little bit warmer then.

Moogy, going back to your op. where is the evidence youve seen that the earth isn't warming up?

My first ever post deleted by MNHQ!

I only asked a question as well

What happened Alisvol ?

I didn't see anything deletable.

I'm not really sure. It was a bit of a sarcastic question granted. OP must have asked for it to be deleted?

Wow. I thought that mumsnetters were a fairly intelligent bunch, but the jury is really out isn't it. Climate change isn't a theory any more. It's a fact. The earth is getting hotter and weather is becoming much more unpredictable. I live in Canada and we've noticed that even the Americans (traditionally 'nothing to do with us' believers) have stated to accept that yes there is something really going wrong, mainly on the evidence of a large increase in extreme weather events (Hurricane Sandy being only the most recent) floods, droughts, wildfire, hurricanes are all on the increase. The impact is already being felt in things like increases in food prices so it's unwise to imagine that the affect won't be felt by our generation.

You have to be careful with a number of these things. CO2 has been proven to cause heating in lab conditions but not in the real world. Food prices are rising as the third world get richer and demand more food.
My concern is that the climate change models cannot accurately reflect actual climate experienced over the last few centuries (ie if you set them at 1800 with the same assumptions and inputs as actually occurred, they do not reflect the current climate) - therefore they cannot be reliable for the future.
The answer to me is a risk/cost/benefit analysis - ie, what will it cost to change things, what is the risk if we don't and what is the benefit if we do. We will always have different personal positions on this graph, but society needs to see where it wants to be.
I am not convinced the cost will lead to sufficient benefit for the risk that has been shown.

The answer to me is a risk/cost/benefit analysis - ie, what will it cost to change things, what is the risk if we don't and what is the benefit if we do. We will always have different personal positions on this graph, but society needs to see where it wants to be. I am not convinced the cost will lead to sufficient benefit for the risk that has been shown.

Hear hear, youngermother.

I don't think that scientists pick and choose their information. I think the daily mail media pick and choose whichever climate headline sounds the most scary.

Scientists often pick and choose the information as they write the press releases. Other times the press releases are written by pressure groups who cherrypick the headlines.

15 cigarettes cause a gene mutation I know this is a different story but the all the actual research has shown is that there are 23,000 genetic mutations in one cancer patient - it has not shown that a 15 a day smoker causes one change a day, and this is very unlikely.
There are many other explanations and no-one is sure how cigarettes cause cancer.
This headline was, however, a quote from the scientist. This is because they rely on stories to get more funding and the story 'lung cancer gene has 23,000 differences to a non-cancerous cell' would not be printed.

I'm with nooka on the changes causing more extreme weather events.

We need to stop burning oil and coal and stop chucking plastic in the sea/rubbish tips - but that would make life much less comfortable than it is so won't happen.

The debate is not whether or not the climate will change. Climate is continuously changing - it has been far hotter and far colder than it is now. The Thames river used to freeze yearly hard enough for markets to take place on it. If we get too hot, vast melting will occur, the gulf stream will slow, and this will trigger an ice age where it would freeze back up again. Has happened, would happen.

The questions are "Is man making the climate change more drastic and/or in a different fashion and can we change the course if we do things differently?" and, more importantly, "As the climate is changing, what can we do to ensure we (humans) can thrive through it?". People interested in global social justice will question how recognizable patterns within climate change such as the drought in East Africa and floods in Southeast Asia are being ignored, why provisions aren't being put in place to help people and why Western corporations are taking resources out of those areas which make these preventable tragedies even worse. But the science behind climate, and the archaeological science around climate over millions of years, is solid.

[note: I am not an archaeological scientist, just married to one who rants about this a lot].

youngermother1 said "You have to be careful with a number of these things. CO2 has been proven to cause heating in lab conditions but not in the real world. Food prices are rising as the third world get richer and demand more food".

I'm not sure where you got the information from that CO2 is not proven to cause warming in the real world. Few would dispute that it is a greenhouse gas.

From Nasa's website climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
Certain facts about Earth's climate are not in dispute:

The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century. Their ability to affect the transfer of infrared energy through the atmosphere is the scientific basis of many JPL-designed instruments, such as AIRS. Increased levels of greenhouse gases must cause the Earth to warm in response.

Its just a 'vehicle' to tax us more and more on motor and domestic fuel by the millionaires supposedly meant to run the country.

Its just a 'vehicle' to tax us more and more on motor and domestic fuel by the millionaires supposedly meant to run the country.

Climate scientists are not the government and I doubt they want to be taxed more, any more than you or I do. If the politicians want to tax us more they will. They don't need an excuse.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue with climate change conspiracy theorists! Seriously guys - those of you fighting the good fight - you are wasting your time.

youngmother1 - Your comments about poor countries and rising food prices is very problematic. It really isn't about them demanding more food, it is us in rich countries demanding more food at their expense.

For example: Bolivians traditionally eat Quinoa, it's one of the few foods that grows well in their climate/altitude. The Spanish colonizers despised, it was referred to as poor people much. Then the rich West found out about it's rich protein structure and now it's found in most high street shops in the UK at a high price. What was once poor people much is now too expensive for Bolivians to eat, they are forced to export it (by need for funds and by need of governmental force, as was true when the Indian famine happened - they grew plenty but were forced to export it to Britain).

As I said before, the East African famine was entirely predicted. We knew it was going to happen, it's part of a cycle, but instead of supporting their governments in storing up supplies, we take instead and several groups exploit the shock for their own benefit. It's disgusting, but we keep blaming them for the issues that we keep creating/refusing to prevent.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to argue with climate change conspiracy theorists! Seriously guys - those of you fighting the good fight - you are wasting your time.

I like a challenge.

Climate change is real, we have measured it, it is definitely happening and is so closely related to CO2 levels that really there isn't room for dispute.

What hasn't been agreed on is exactly how that climate change rise will affect the weather, weather is, as we all know, very complex and difficult to predict, the worlds most powerful computers are working on it. None of the models look good really, we really need to cut our pollution. Unless the supervolcano erupts first then we're all truely fucked

Happy,

As an example - how does saving water impact on the environment.? We are asked to turn the tap off and using less water. The water we let run down the tap just goes back into the system. You can't waste water.

It doesn't easily go back into the system. It is usually released to the sea and there is increasing pressure on fresh water reserves. More acute during droughts.
It may eventually come back as rain. Or not...

And recycling - that has no impact on the weather either. It just saves someone somewhere money.

Recycling may not impact on the weather directly but on other things, such as forests, use of petroleum, and mining.
The Earth has a limited supply of oil and metals. Forests take time to grow.

Paying for plastic bags?
This is to reduce waste of plastic products (made from petroleum) and damage to wildlife, particularly seabirds, but also turtles, etc.
If you have to pay, you're more likely to reuse.

Climate change isn't a theory any more. It's a fact.

But nooka this is the problem.

Yes CO2 is warming the Earth.
But we don't know how much, nor are we predicting the secondary effects.

We can't account for where all the heat that should be building up (in theory) is going.

And the huge reduction Arctic sea-ice was not generally predicted.

We're guessing.

Recycling reduces waste going to landfill where it emits methane as it decays. Methane can be gathered for burning from landfill sites but capture isn't very efficient. Even incineration is better than landfill - CO2 is a less potential GHG so at least breaking down methane helps in addition to providing some support to non-renewable fuel supplies.

new draft IPCC report here
It concludes AGW but the consequences don't appear that bad to me and they also conclude the damage is done

new draft IPCC report here
It concludes AGW but the consequences don't appear that bad to me and they also conclude the damage is done

The website you have linked to is a climate denial site. You might as well link to Fox News. How can the damage already be done if we are putting more and more greenhouses into the atmosphere?