we have all been 'had' re global warming

[howmuchdidyousay]

To think its the biggest conspiracy theory of all time ?

climate science

met-office

but you may just thing they are all in the pay of those perpetuating the swindle.

Bunch of conspiracy theory crazed hysterical ostriches.

YABVU.

I like this (from the third link):

'Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) - www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - [[http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html[[
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC) - www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - epa.gov/climatechange/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS) - www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU) - www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS) - www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics (AIP) - www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) - eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS) - www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm0
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS) - www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm1

The planet will still be here, even the worst we can throw at it is nukes and I don't think we have enough of those to actually destroy the planet (like blow it up so it breaks apart).

Whether you think saving the planet for mankind is worth the effort and if you believe that mankind is actually important enough to affect the planet in the extreme long term is the is question.

We would be squashed like bugs if the planet ever wakes up and starts to scratch.

Some of the links don't work, mind.

Rollmops you are fantastic, sanity prevails at last, I totally agree with your post. Your house on the Baltic sounds romantic is it Sweden?

NASA's climate change site here

From the 'Evidence' tab: 'In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.'

There's also a tab called 'Uncertainties' that addresses some of the points made on this thread.

I'm looking forward to the first poster claiming to be more knowledgable about this topic than the folks at NASA.

Don't be silly.

re the OP, tell it to the folks in Cockermouth
worst flooding event in 1000 yrs, just 4 yre after the worst flooding event in 100yrs.

Well, precisely PW, but, you've got to remember, the folks at NASA are all in the pay of 'da man' aren't they?

This would be 'da' renewable energy industry 'man' where the top 150 companies have a market capitalisation of $100 million, compared to the annual turnover of the oil & gas industry at $500 Billion.

However, since I am not inclined to oversimplify matters I will also point out that many companies in the oil & gas/energy sector are also investing increasingly heavily in renewable/alternative energy sources. They recognise that, even if the public debate on climate change is not won, the economics of fossil fuels are such that business as usual is not going to be a viable option within 20 years. Change is inevitable, whatever argument is driving it.

Indeed giz. For eight years, the man signing the cheques was George W Bush, and we all know that he was just a starry-eyed hippy leftist who had drank climate change KoolAid before every meal.

YABVVVU

Christ, is human selfish behaviour so ingrained that asking us to do the tiddliest thing like take our own bags to tesco's or chuck our bottles in a bin marked 'glass' is seen as an attempt to 'have' us?

Why is it always the laziest people who so dearly want to believe that CC is a myth.

Ok so it's a myth - can you come up with any good reasons why we shouldn't use less, waste less, look at our wasteful lifestyles anyway?

I have to laugh at the idea that only the people who can 'benefit' from CC are the ones shouting the loudest. My parents were hippies back in the day and I bore the ignominy of having to recycle etc whilst at primary school in the 1980's - not cool.

The idea that my folks and their hippy mates are making up a lot of rubbish in order to make a fast buck is so gigglesome I almost wish it was true. God, I'd love to see it!

lol exactly policywonk.

Our gvts are all frantically trying to avoid having to take real action on CC so who exactly is 'the man' who is paying all these scientists to spout a load of codswallop?

Greenpeace? Are they 'da man'?

Hmmm you know a big part of the problem is that the solutions to climate change - or mitigation strategies - are essentially redistributive, and/or involve a significant reduction in Western standards of living (the odd bit of recycling just isn't going to cut it in the long term). So anyone with a right-wing inclination is going to have an inbuilt resistance to it I think.

Actually, PW, that ain't necessarily so.

When it comes to domestic energy consumption, a combination of effective insulation, significant investment in lower carbon power and improvements in grid efficiency can probably make an immense difference over the next 20 years, as well as providing a great boost to the economy.

However, the problem arises when you look at transport and the embedded carbon in our consumption of goods and services. That is a much thornier issue: transport may be amenable to some technical solutions (electric cars are still a long way off viability but closing fast) but cutting back our cheap, imported goods habit is a blow to western standards of living and it's very hard to find a positive way to sell it.

I've just realised I contradicted myself in that post. More accurately I guess, I think you're right in part, PW.

No, that's interesting giz

Isn't it the case that - in terms of actual effects on the climate rather than improvements in life quality - nothing really matters beyond what the US, China, India etc do? The UK is doing pretty well on its carbon targets as I understand it (partly because of Thatcher's, erm, prescience in closing down the coal industry - another fucking hippy!)

Good point PW. I'd be arguing beyond my knowledge if I disagreed with you about US, China and India (don't have figures to hand about growth in their projected carbon outputs) but from what I understand China and India are a) extremely interested in establishing low carbon solutions if they are affordable and b) if they don't result in their citizens being locked into a lower standard of living than the West.

Energy wise, the US has some pressing domestic agendas to do with independence from foriegn oil that will probably drive them towards lower carbon energy and transport solutions. But reducing consumption - that's never going to be politically viable over there.

Do you think it's possible for everyone to have a Western standard of living? Surely there's just not enough stuff. There's definitely not enough potable/sanitary water.

Depends what you mean by 'being had' but have read enough reputable journals (don't ever go near newspapers to understand anything scientific as all they want is a good fear story to sell papers!)to understand that the climate is NOT static and always changing - that man has had an impact although in terms of percentage this is so small to be negligible- and that it is now a political issue.

People are too busy arguing over the 'impact' - global warming, next iceage, sea levels, dramatic weather (dramatic events always occur however the population is expanding therefore putting us in closer proximity to such events,with the means of being able to broadcast this across the planet in an instant) etc etc because the average lifespan of a human being is a mere 70 years - again such a small period of time in comparison to the actual timeline of homo sapiens and smaller still compared to the timeline of the planet.

What NEEDS to be considered is what impact any measures introduced as a result of the fear of environmental concerns will have - the biggest killer of humans on this planet is POVERTY - this is where the real political concern lies - perhaps all that money available for studies/summits/reports could be channelled here instead.

A word from a scientist - measuring something always has an impact on what you are measuring. Carrying out an experiment to find something you want to prove usually means you find it! Consider where the funding comes from - if you prove something no need for further research - budget gets cut!

And it's a parents natural concern to worry about children and their children........

There is an awful lot of money to be made from climate change theories, is there?

Nowhere near as much as there is to be lost from the constraints on economic growth that would be necessary to do anything about the bloody thing. This is a conspiracy from which almost no one can benefit, and the few who would are not those in a position to foist the conspiracy on the world.

YANBU so much as YAB an idiot.

Linden - can you point me in the direction of a single reputable journal which takes the editorial line that man's impact has been negligible? Not individual papers, but journals.

'In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.'

On the upside, all the research into lower energy alternatives to things has led to these:

oled lights

YANBU the public have definitley been had.

The solution to Climate Change (Global Warming), if it really exists, is to get rid of coal fired power stations all over the planet and burn gas in highly efficient gas fired power stations instead.

That would have an immediate and discernable impact on CO2 emissions and the combined cycle gas turbne technology is already in use in a large number of power stations funded by private investment, not public money. The technology is getting cheaper every day. There is a glut of gas in the world and so plentiful supply is available if brought in on giant LNG carrying ships.

Why do we have stupid policies aimed at increasing useless wind turbine output at incredible expense? The answer is subsidy and public money. Far too many vested interests supping at the public trough desperate to keep the whole Global Warming fallacy going so the subsidy keeps flowing.

Many academics also rely on the Global Warming falalcy for their research funding so almost no one has an incentive or the resources to challenge the consensus.

and when the gas runs out ?

It is much more efficient to use gas to heat houses rather than making electricity from it because the is a fundamental physical limit to the efficiency of making electricity.

If you need electricity - then we need to be using sources such as solar and wave energy (neither of which have had huge research investment put into them yet) - or crack nuclear fusion.