we have all been 'had' re global warming

[howmuchdidyousay]

To think its the biggest conspiracy theory of all time ?

Can't be bothered to read all 23 pages so far, suffice to say it's ironic that the OP was written on Wednesday night and just a few short hours later hundreds of people had to be evacuated from their homes across Cumbria due to the the worst flooding ever.

I bet all those people wish you were right OP

quite

Reluctant1stimer -You see that comment is nonsensical.You don't think there were floods before ?
Apparently the flood in cumbria broke the record for most rainfall ina day , which had stood for 50 years.So why , if global warming really is happening would the record have stood for 50 years ?
Do you not remember last winter, the coldest October on record ? People don't believe their own eyes !!

Yes madam there have been other floods as bad, Carlisle had the worst flood in 100 years 4 years ago. Devon had the worst flood in 100 years soon after. In 2007 there was the worst flooding in god knows how long in much of the country. Isn't it funny that all of these floods were the worst in decades and decades in each area yet they all happened in the last decade?

I don't think it's going to do any of us harm to be a bit more respectful to the environment and it might just help the damage already done from getting worse as quickly.

Although perhaps all you sceptics have no problems where you live?

Hmm so that's 2 -places ,and how many places are there in the UK ?

madame, climate change doesn't mean that everywhere is going to get warmer. (Indeed, some places are likely to become colder.)

Do you really think that you know better on this issue than 97.4 per cent of climate scientists, and 80 per cent of all scientists? Are you really in a position to challenge that level of consensus?

Madame, no wonder you're not convinced if you've added that up to two places in the uk.

YABU! Very YABU!

Here's an article which will please all libertarians neutrals in its tone, but which makes a basic point about what this really is, at worst.

We diverge at the point where she begins to work up her description of skeptics as brave little outsiders, but hey.

it's not the worst flooding ever - the same place flooded exactly the same in the 1920s.

the climate is changing, probably, it is part of a natural cycle, probably. The solution to our planet's over- use of resources is population control on a massive scale; mother nature will take care of this for us at some point in the future.

man-made climate change theory seems to have become a religion and its not one that it is permissible to challenge, it seems to me. I am a strong believer in science and scientific consensus but I starting to wonder...

I watched Caroline Lucas practically shrieking on Newsnight one night (when the interviewer had the temerity to challenge some aspect of the theory) about how it was beyond question, should not be debated, should just be accepted etc. Most bizarre.

Who cares if its a conspiracy theory if its get people to think twice about the rape of the earth's nature and resources?
I feel so so sad at what we are doing to our planet, and I wonder whether future generations will forgive us.
I do what I can, I recycle all plastic etc etc, but of course it'll never be enough.
I read the other day that BP wants to start digging for oil in a nature reserve on the border between the US and CAnada. The different species of bear will start inbreeding because they won't be able to reach one other when the plant is set up.
Fucking disgusting.
So the global warming hype, whether its true or false, can only be a good thing IMO.

there have always been floods. The climate change models suggest that as global warming continues the climate will become more variable and there will be more extremes of weather. Seems to fit with what is happening at the moment.

Ten years ago there was no consensus on the man made effect of global warning, now there is. Ten years ago it looked like there was a long time to sort this out, as the science improves it seems that may not be true. If the permafrost melts it will not be good news permafrost changes

Building regulations have been changed so that new homes have to have far higher standards of insulation. There are substantial government grants for the most cost effective ways to improve insulation (cavity wall insulation, loft insulation). I agree they don't go far enough but changes are being made.

I think that is the overall problem for the 'unbelievers!' too many guesses. Even using climate models scientists can only speculate on what would happen with say a modest rise in temperature over a prolonged period. Still a guess - and yet they are allowed to 'preach' it as the truth. I want those scientists who do disagree to be given similar air time and the right to publication rather than treated as 'heretics'- we allow it with other 'science stories' so why not this one.

Policy - those 90+% climate scientists how many are 'independant'? How many declared their interests? Do they all agree on exactly what is going to happen? And yes why not challenge - that is what people do and should be allowed to do - when they do start shrieking (Lucas)I do start to lose respect because they should be able to stand up to the challenge. The reason they can't is because they don't know exactly what is happening, they can't accurately predict what is going to happen, they can't suggest what interventions need to be done they may as well start shouting 'repent repent...the end of the world is nigh'.

A question for acebaby - weather stations in the UK responsible for recording temperature - distributed throughout the whole of the UK? Are the majority in towns and cities which have grown in size since the 1900s? Surely temperatures will have risen due to urbanisation and population growth? How many weather stations are in areas that have not changed in the last 100 years - only then will they be comparable.

And Sakura - we live on the planet and use its resources since the appearance of Homo sapiens. We have always changed the land - some of those so called beauty spots and 'natural' forests are there because of the influence of man long ago.

Well first off as a scientist you are unlikely to go into this particular field if you don't believe in climate change are you ? So I don't think that statement means a lot.
i would be very interested as to how the opinions of the 80 % who work in fields unrelated to climate change is relevant ?

there is a lot of difference between a guess and the outcome of a model. Of course scientists are not all going to agree on exactly what will happen, the science isn't that precise. It's good enough to tell us that the range of what is going to happen varies from bad to terrible.

There is also a difference between answering legitimate questions and wasting time on foolish ones.

Had an interesting experience on this the other day. I was taking part in the global day of action on climate change, part of the build up to Copenhagen.

We had an event in the town square on a wet and windy Saturday in Stafford, complete with town crier, a batch of belly dancers and political speakers.

My job was handing out leaflets to passers by. Most took them quite happily - they may or may not have actually read them! With the ones who didn't I began to notice their standard response. It was "I'm alright thank you".

I think Riven has hit on the right answer here. For some people it is all too much to think about. It can't be happening because they don't want it to.

I think it is perfectly understandable that people are scared. and close themselves off. Perhaps it is right that we need to make action as easy as possible for people, and take into account that there will always be a lot of people who need a lot of help to do the right things.

It is all a very important issue for parents, because the changes that this will bring about in the way we live our lives will one way or the other be huge. Our children will be living in a different world and we have to prepare for that.

Personally I am an optimist. I have a bit of a ringside seat. I am aware of some of the work being done - partly by DECC, partly by other groups, I can see big advances in technology, and some good incentives that are being put in place for people to do the right things.

I saw "the age of Stupid" recently, and that is very good at pointing out what is causing the barriers to action. I was warned that it was a very depressing film, which in some ways it is, but it is also clear that even since the film was made, that things have moved on fast, we are getting much closer to doing the right things.

I am part of the Transition Town movement. One of the most important groups that we have is a "people group". facing an uncertain an challenging future is something that becomes less frightening if we learn to meet and work with other people.

tatt your last statement smacks of arrogance! Plenty of scientists have been shown to be foolish themselves when sticking to one view - and not considering others.

BSE,SARS,Nuclear threat of the Cold war, eugenics.......

Plus what were our parents afraid of? I think I am living in a different world compared to them. The future IS always uncertain because it is the future!

Ok perhaps someone who is clued up on all this climate change stuff can answer this genuine question.Soory if they are foolish Tatt
There is a finite amount of fossil fuel.When it runs out it can't contribute to global warming anymore? So the effect will be self limiting Also given this supply is finite ,it will create just as much co2 whether it is burned over 10 years or 1000

not self limiting - because if the science is right then if the warming continues you will start getting positive feedback situations that increase the warming.

Three examples:

1. ice caps at the poles reflect most of the sunlight back to space (for the half a year when they have it). Take the ice away and you have a dark ocean (or dark landmass) that will absorb the heat from the sun rather than reflect it. That means you have a warmer pole - very big changes to the circulation patterns (eg uk weather is dominated by warm air moving north - this would change). I don't think the models have yet been run with a no-ice scenario - it has been postulated by probably seemed so extreme they couldn't justify the computer time required - now it doesn't seem so unrealistic.

1. large parts of the northern landmasses are permafrost - containing large amounts of methane (and shorter lived by more effective greenhouse gas). Melt those and you can imagine where that takes us. There are also large methane deposits in the oceans - which could be become volatile and released to the atmosphere.

1. CO2 is more soluble in cold water - so warm the water and it cannot hold as much.

There is a lot more to it than that - we live in a very complex and dynamic planet. Which is why there is no definitive answer.

But - and it is a big but - if there is even a 10% chance of it happening - shouldn't we be doing something ? If you were told there is a 10% chance of your electrical supply will malfunction and blow your house up - would you be happy to do nothing about it ?

hmm - by in my previous post should be but more often than not !

I really don't feel like I've been had, why would I?

and whether or not you 'believe' in global warming there are plenty of good reasons to try to increase the use of alternative energy sources, use less energy generally and recycle materials etc

It's common sense that the earth's resources are limited and the capacity to keep chucking stuff away willy-nilly is not endless either

One part of Goerge Monbiot's "heat" was I thought useful. He looked at the way in which we discuss things. He pointed out that the BBC convention - in search of balance - is to have people from different sides of an arguement round a table.

In the case of Climate change they interpret this by having one of the 90% of scientists who clearly believe that climate change is real and demands action now, against someone else. The someone else often comes from a branch of science that is not completely relevant, or has a book, or gains their income in some way which makes it undesirable for us to act on climate change.

He feels, and I think I agree, that it may be time to move on from this. There is plenty of real discussion to be had about what needs to be done - as outlined by some of the contributions from throkenholt, and about how we should fund this.

I spotted that one of the links in the thread talks about public information - shouldn't there be more of it. It is a good question. There is clearly a great deal of confusion and people do need to understand the science. - maybe they need to feel first, before they can understand.

The question is - how do you do it? this advert tinyurl.com/ylmgumc seemed to upset quite a lot of people. Is it a good one? and if not what do you think might work?

I think a lot of it should be government led.

Example - the insulation program I suggested earlier in the thread. They should also make businesses move out of the south east - so that people can leave close to where they work - so they don't have stupidly long commutes. We could cut down a huge amount on the amount we travel about.

If we in the west cut our consumption of heating and fuel by half through insulation and more local provision that would be a start. We could also stop nipping to Rome for a long weekend just 'cos we feel like it. Yes I would love to do that - but I don't because I have made a decision not to fly, partly because I choose to live in the country side and travel 10 miles each way to work. We holiday in the uk - 5 in one car probably twice a year (maybe up 2000 miles a year). My point is we have thought about it.

Another thing - think how much paper we use (waste) - both at work and home. We could easily cut back on that and not miss it. Same with packaging. Every bit of that takes energy to process, and transport. If we don't waste it on that then we can save it for more important things.

Many people live year round in t-shirts and have the heating turned up - why ? We need to re-educate ourselves and appreciate the luxuries we have a luxuries rather than essentials. We can keep some of the luxuries but we need to be aware of what they are and why we have chosen those over others.

live note leave

must learn to proof read !