to suggest that people who moan about flying and its impact on the environment should have their passports stamped?

[twirlymum]

Seriously.
It just winds me up when people whinge about the effect it has on climate change, then go on several holidays/fly on business etc.
If they felt that strongly about it they should stay here, or find another way to travel. They should have their passports stamped so they cannot fly.
The jury is out in this house regarding the whole climate change/natural cycle of the earth heating up & cooling down argument anyway.

[puts flame proof coat on]

Indeed. And we are releasing millions of years worth of stored carbon into the atmosphere in that blink of an eye.

But I'd dearly love to be able to stop worrying about this, so if you've got some information that contradicts the evidence please let us know.

It depends what sceintific research into climate change you are talking about, and who is paying those scientists...there are plenty who disagree with humans having a role in climate change.

If by plenty you mean a tiny handful whose views stand in opposition to every major scientific body in the world then I suppose you are right.

I recently saw the film "The Age of Stupid" and there was one point that particularly impressed me: the recognition of how difficult it was to function in the modern age without the burning of fossil fuel, there was such a lack of alternatives. For example, my local authority offer sports classes for children after school - including surfing, wow! But it's 15 miles away, 30 minutes after the school bell rings (i.e. 20 mins after the little darlings actually come out). There is just no way I'm going to get there in time on a bus.

It kind of irks me that I am doing my best to cut my carbon footprint, possibly denying my children some experiences as a result, while other people consume away, so that ... what? My actions buy future generations, say, another 2 seconds before they drown/ starve/ fry? I would like to see a critical mass, but you know what? Even if I was alone I would keep doing it because to me it's a moral issue. In a nutshell, it's about the greater good versus an individual good.

I am quite happy for people to cut down if they don't feel they can stop flying/ driving/ eating pineapples altogether. I am less impressed with people who claim it's more "honest" not to consider the environmental impact of our activities, just so they can keep doing them.

www.globalwarming.org/2009/02/03/global-warming-101-science/

Sorry, don't know if this link will work, I haven't tried doing one before!

Thanks, twirlymum. This article is not by a scientist though - the author is from the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" which describes itself as:

"a public interest group dedicated to free enterprise and limited government" who believe that "the best solutions come from people making their own choices in a free marketplace, rather than government intervention."

The article is more about ideology than evidence.

Another link

Again though, the words 'likely' and 'more likely than not' are not definitive.

No - in this case it is defined as a probability of 90% or greater.

So if you knew that there was a 90% chance that your roof was going to fall in, would you get it fixed, or wait indoors until you were 100% certain?

www.globalwarminghoax.com/comment.php?comment.news.113

There are lots more like this. I'm not saying we should carry on the way we are - we create far too much rubbish, and we do need to find more efficient ways of creating power, but I'm fed up with all the alarmist reporting.

The problem is, when it's been absolutely proven, it will be too late ...