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.

Ahhh this really pisses me off

I'm not going to deal with all the stupid POVs expressed here as it would make me far too ranty for my relaxed twixmas evening so I'll just raise a couple of points:

1. for those of you that think we are being really arrogant to assume that humankind can affect something on a macro scale like the weather, do you think that Europe or the US looks pretty much undisturbed by humans? Or perhaps, does almost every square mile show some signs of human intervention, from man made fields for cattle to vast industrial, commercial and residential constructions? You wouldn't deny those because you can see them very clearly. You can't 'see' the climate so it's very easy for people to be armchair philosophers and make claims which are based on absolutely nothing but their own ignorance. Now that's arrogant.

2. I've worked with a particle accelerator which does materials research. They do research into climate science, aeronautics, magnetic storage devices, pharmaceuticals and everything inbetween. I expect you're happy to trust airplanes will fly, the medicines you take won't poison you, that your computer will store your data. Why are you so opposed to believing the climate scientists? Are you scared that the results need some personal responsibilty and a vast cultural shift that you're not prepared to take? Is it guilt?

This thread makes me want to cry . I think the arguments for climate change are very clear and have been eloquently reiterated here. I think many educated people, good friends of mine included, find it convenient to ignore or deny climate change so that they can continue with their current lifestyles until they are brought nose to nose with the reality of the situation.

For what it's worth - I know it's not necessarily based on climate change but I feel the movie "The Road" pretty much sums up the future.

Government funded scientists are extremely unbiased. UK research is funded by arms length bodies - the research councils. This is to give some independence from government pressures. UK research cherishes the Haldane principle to ensure independence:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haldane_principle

To imply that government funded researchers are on some mission to help governments increase taxes is bonkers.

Actually - a better link than Wikipedia on the Haldane principle. I'm obviously starting to froth:

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmdius/168/16807.htm

UK scientists decide which science should be funded through independent, expert peer review which is designed to ensure the best science gets funded (I hadn't made that clear).

moogy

Oh! That's really odd then! Granted my reply ended on a slightly sarcastic note, it was only about three sentences long,I didn't think it was offensive (I don't deliberately set out to offend) .Very strange!

The pro AGW 'climate scientists' tend to be government-paid, the anti, tend to be independently funded.

So the pro AGW scientists who are very much in the majority are lying through their teeth because they are government funded? The antis who are "independent" are OK because they are paid for by benevolent philanthropists who just want the antis to tell the truth?
Why are these hundreds of government funded scientists from all over the world lying then? Do their governments tell them to lie even when their is a change of government? It really does sound uncomfortably like a conspiracy theory doesn't it.

i think anthropogenic climate change is what you are actually talking about.

i think it is questionable, particularly where it comes to predictability. we don't know the possible global effect - local effects are fairly predictable though (urban heat island etc)

consequently: we don't know that it would actually be a bad thing. or a good thing. or what sort of thing it would actually mean on a year to year basis (considering that weather is already unpredictable, and is at times extreme anyway, the 'extreme weather' thesis is one of the most questionable claims of the green movement)

i think a great deal of 'green' taxation falls unfairly hard on the poorest (particularly motor fuel taxation), and some of the 'green' initiatives are only accessible to the wealthy (home ownership is a minimum requirement for many schemes to be any use to you).

some green measures are definitely worth taking even without any 'global' benefit claim. oil is too precious to burn, rainforests are peoples homes, monoculture threatens human health and welfare as well as possible intangibles, and wildlife. however the great ideas that solve these problems will not come from government blunt-instrument taxation.

think about it: the animal rights movement didn't invent the combustion engine, but it saved an awful lot of horses from exploitation.

some green measures are definitely worth taking even without any 'global' benefit claim

Interesting post, Edgar, and I agree with this statement although I might take issue with some of your subsequent ones. Monoculture is a big issue - highly damaging to the people and wildlife in land-based economies, unhelpful to local climates, cynically instigated and exploited by financial institutions, and significantly assisted by 'green' interests. Palm oil, for example.

Landfill has to be worth limiting because of ecological concerns - though there are little-explored arguments in its favour, if sea levels are going to rise! - and seafill, one of GB's mucky moneyspinners, is a disaster playing out as we write. Chemical waste should be more efficiently neutralised and waste technology (ship, fridge and tank graveyards, for example) should be recycled as they are unexploded ecological bombs. But this is all about not poisoning our resources more than we can help; the climate warming thing is a different question as I understand it.

Got to repeat, though, I'm learning from this discussion now and appreciate the thoughtful posts ... thanks for starting it, moogy :)

Oh, I keep meaning to ask this thread - has the currently ongoing polar shift absolutely nothing to do with the currently discussed climate change? I've read some things saying ohh, nooo, it's all happening in our outer magnetic fields, has no effect on gas mantle ... but I'm sceptical. When it reaches critical, the polarity of all the molecules on the planet's surface will reverse. As we're concerned about the climactic effects of man-made irritations to the planet, I find it hard to believe we may safely ignore such a fundamentally significant mutation.

Nobody seems to agree on whether the current shift is "fast" (one or two thousand years) or "slow". We know that magnetic storms on the sun and/or passing electrical events in space cause weather events here on Earth. How come we're supposed to discount our planet's own magnetic alterations?

garlic what do you mean by the polarity of all the molecules on earth etc etc? Do you mean a magnetic polarity? electrical polarity? I am confused

Heh, chibi, me too

OK, we know the planet weaves on its axis like a drunk in very slow motion. We know that every so often, it tilts and the magnetic polarity changes. Evidence of this lies in strata on the earth's crust, in which molecules are aligned N -> S (according to current poles) and then S -> N. We're in a polar shift at the moment. Jury's out on how long it will be before your compass points S for North. The actual shift won't make everything fly off the surface of the planet, solid things to melt or any other sci-fi effects, though it may possibly cause some electrical equipment to short out.

NASA explains it better than me, I'm sure

I am sceptical of the received (by me) view that this isn't affecting our atmosphere at all.

Anyone who thinks that the amount of CO2 chugged out over the past 150 years hasn't contributed to climate change is an eejit.

Hmm, alistron, well there is this: "while Earth's magnetic field can indeed weaken and strengthen over time, there is no indication that it has ever disappeared completely. A weaker field would certainly lead to a small increase in solar radiation on Earth ? as well as a beautiful display of aurora at lower latitudes -- but nothing deadly. Moreover, even with a weakened magnetic field, Earth's thick atmosphere also offers protection against the sun's incoming particles."
From NASA educational page linked above.

CO2 is the 'dense' component of Earth's atmosphere. Without it, we'd be irradiated by demon sun rays. Swings and roundabouts?

YABVVVU. I just discovered this thread as going to bed, and will be back on it tomorrow probably! Do you know how long it's been since global temperature for any month wasn't above the average for that month during the 20th century? 27 years that's how long. That's global warming. And it's man-made, because we have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels (and also cutting down forests). And the consequences will not be good. At all. There is a great website that answers lots of questions like 'isn't it the sun?' etc etc: www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Garlic, that's got nothing at all to do with the vast amounts of CO2 humans have been pumping out for the past 150 or so years!!

Another ignoramus question (promise I'll stop for the night now!) ...

If carbon dioxide causes earthly hotness because of its density, how come volcanic/nuclear debris causes coldness? Wouldn't they both have the same effect? Well, clearly not, but why?

Links will do; I'll read :) Thanks.

Lol, Flick!

Thanks for answer, ali, but not good enough. Perhaps more CO2 might actually be protective right now?

I am not espousing one view over another, btw, my questions are really questions.

Going to bed now, anyway; somewhat grateful for unseasonable warmth as can't afford much heating

Was confused about the polarity as it was my understanding that not everything is kagnetic, neither do all molecules have an electrical polarity. the idea that things without a polarity are changing their polarity just seemed really confusing and contradictory.

maybe you had a specific molecule(s) in mind?

the density of carbon dioxide has nothing to do with its behaviour as a greenhouse gas; this is down to how its chemical bonds absorb and emit infrared radiation

what's the point of asking questions if respondent uses them as opportunity to take the piss. glad there are posters here capable of explanation